Politics: J'accuse!

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by bilmore
Is your point that I have said that those killings were not war crimes? 'Cuz, I didn't. They were war crimes. And I take them more seriously than writing "rapist" on the arm of a rapist.

No. I accepted your explanation. I was just pointing out in a probably too oblique manner that I think we are going to soon learn that Americans have committed "war crimes" in the more serious sense that you originally meant it -

"The common usage, and the horrified way of saying it that brings to mind death, and despair, and the end of civilization, and not a speeding ticket in a war zone.

Treblinka was a war crime. My Lai was a war crime. The shooting of the Koreans under the bridge was a war crime. Executions of POWs are war crimes. Beatings and tortures and starvations and freezings are war crimes."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They can't? We should repeal those regulations as well. Although somehow I'm guessing that the need for those regulations coincides with the rise of rent control.

But again, you're conflating arguments for generally applicable regulations and ones that depend solely on the identity of the tenant. Rent control is not public housing, with a specified rent for a specified unit. That's the public utility model, and if taxpayers want to support that, so be it. Rent control specifies a rent for a particular person, and no one else. That person has an option to continue with that rent, but if he/she moves out, any new tenant can be charged, at least initially, the current market rent.

Does the rent control only apply to people who lived in a place in a particular year? Because if not, it's going to apply to each successive renter.

I personally have never lived in a rent-controlled area, and I'm fine with that. I'm just saying that rent control is not some enormous hardship on landlords (it just changes the math) and that it's not really all that different from other laws. I think there was a constitutional amendment passed in TX that prevents property taxes from going up after a resident reaches age 65. Same kind of thing, but specifically for the elderly. And it will induce the same distortions, like RT's friend.

It will not induce me to get my parents to move in with me, though.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Most public utility laws allow for a reasonable rate of return. Many rent control laws do not, for a small landlord with a long-term renter.

2) Even the People's Republic of Massachusetts got rid of rent control. Are you hoping for a return to the days of Mike Dukakis?

(curious fact I just learned: Mike Dukakis was a law school classmate of Antonin Scalia and Laurence Silberman)

(ETA) And, yeah, what Ty said. Cable television is not a necessity.

I simply offerred -Ty the explanation he sought, I did not advocate one way or the other.

Item (1) is a question that relates to how it is implemented, rather than the fundamental question of what the rationale for it is. Item (2) is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The curious fact can stand.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If this is a social need, then the cost should be borne by society, and not simply by the holder of the asset that is undersupplied.

Exactly. Of course, you and I will probably differ on whether that cost should be borne by society-as-a-whole at all, but that's just because we have different views of the wisdom of sufffering the costs of not ensuring the availability of affordable housing in each market.

But I tend to agree that the cost of social programs should be borne by the larger society that benefits from their existence, and not merely by the individuals within that society who have a particular species of asset needed by the government to ameliorate the ill. Hell, when we impress ships for national defense needs, the ship owners get paid prevailing market freight rates.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does the rent control only apply to people who lived in a place in a particular year? Because if not, it's going to apply to each successive renter.

There are several kinds, each objectionable in its own way.

There's true rent control and rent control with vacancy decontrol.

The former is strict rate regulation. The apartment has a controlled rent that increases only moderately each year, regardless of the tenant. The result is that landlords invest little in the house and renters use various mechanisms, including payments and outright bribes to obtain access to below-market-rent apartments. It's far from efficient, because for the most part the savings created by the low rent are eaten up either in the form of access payments or substandard services.

The latter is similar to the former, except that a landlord can raise the rent to market levels once a tenant vacates, but then is limited in the annual increases for each tenant thereafter. This eliminates the problem of payments for access to the below-market apartment, but substitutes an unfairness from lock-in and creates the likelihood of a bad landlord-tenant relationship, because the landlord's incentive is to drive tenants out regularly.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There are several kinds, each objectionable in its own way.

There's true rent control and rent control with vacancy decontrol.

The former is strict rate regulation. The apartment has a controlled rent that increases only moderately each year, regardless of the tenant. The result is that landlords invest little in the house and renters use various mechanisms, including payments and outright bribes to obtain access to below-market-rent apartments. It's far from efficient, because for the most part the savings created by the low rent are eaten up either in the form of access payments or substandard services.

The latter is similar to the former, except that a landlord can raise the rent to market levels once a tenant vacates, but then is limited in the annual increases for each tenant thereafter. This eliminates the problem of payments for access to the below-market apartment, but substitutes an unfairness from lock-in and creates the likelihood of a bad landlord-tenant relationship, because the landlord's incentive is to drive tenants out regularly.

I really actually did not need to know this.

This all boils down to you our views of the desirability of a pure unadulterated market system, laws, and regulations. Now that we understand each other's positions (I think) it's just going to get repetitious.

Yay! Agreeing to disagree!!

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm just saying that rent control is not some enormous hardship on landlords (it just changes the math) and that it's not really all that different from other laws.

(1) It is an enormous hardship on landlords. That landlord in SF was getting $500/mo. instead of (maybe) $2000/mo. (depending on location, etc. -- I don't know where that was). That's a lot of money.

(1a) You say this is mitigated by the fact that landlords who bought after rent control knew what they were getting into. Maybe so. But maybe they had the property for longer. Or maybe rent control was initially thought of as a temporary thing. I dunno.

(2) But who cares about the fatcat landlords? The big problem with rent control is that it screws up the rental market for the rest of us. Market rents in SF are crazy, and it's at least partly because of the people staying where they are because they don't want to lose their rent controlled digs. No one wants to invest in new housing because rent control limits your returns. It's a mess.

eta: This last bit coming with someone who doesn't have an objection in principle to government regulation. These regulations, it seems to me, have pernicious effects.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Duplicity
(1) It is an enormous hardship on landlords. That landlord in SF was getting $500/mo. instead of (maybe) $2000/mo. (depending on location, etc. -- I don't know where that was). That's a lot of money.

(1a) You say this is mitigated by the fact that landlords who bought after rent control knew what they were getting into. Maybe so. But maybe they had the property for longer. Or maybe rent control was initially thought of as a temporary thing. I dunno.

(2) But who cares about the fatcat landlords? The big problem with rent control is that it screws up the rental market for the rest of us. Market rents in SF are crazy, and it's at least partly because of the people staying where they are because they don't want to lose their rent controlled digs. No one wants to invest in new housing because rent control limits your returns. It's a mess.

You don't need to do three paragraphs on how this law messes with your life. I realize you hate this particular regulation in large part because it is disadvantageous to you. You would probably like it better if your parents lived down the street, had lived there forever, could only afford to live there b/c of rent control, and provided on-demand child care.

I never said it was an ideal law. But, I have as much sympathy for the person who bought hoping rent control would go out the window as I do for the person who bought the tech stock hoping it would quadruple in value again.

I also don't have sympathy for people who have to move, as long as society realizes, and accommodates the fact that, it's going to have to bear the cost of having no residents who can afford to work for low wages.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Of course, you and I will probably differ on whether that cost should be borne by society-as-a-whole at all, but that's just because we have different views of the wisdom of sufffering the costs of not ensuring the availability of affordable housing in each market.

I think we disagree less than you think. I'm all for non-geographic-based subsidies; I think that's the best way to avoid groupings based on welfare. I'd likely have a smaller pool of eligible tenants than you might name, but we do need to keep (some certain select) people housed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
we do need to keep (some certain select) people housed.

I fully support free rent for inmates in the correctional facility of the government's choosing.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I fully support free rent for inmates in the correctional facility of the government's choosing.

I think we could get around a lot of this if the SC would throw out that ridiculous decision on how it's OK to zone for single-family versus multi-family housing (and minimum lot sizes, etc.). Yeah, you get more fresh air living in a single-family house, but you can't call it health and welfare when the residents of both types of housing are homo sapiens.

Yes, buckos, that means that someone can build a big ol' apartment building across the street from your new McMansion.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You don't need to do three paragraphs on how this law messes with your life. I realize you hate this particular regulation in large part because it is disadvantageous to you.

I own, so lose that notion. And my last paragraph, which is the crux of the issue for me, is that rent control is, on balance, bad for everyone. Some few renters benefit, but other renters lose, and so do landlords. Setting aside the landlords entirely, since they are subhuman and do not deserve equal protection under the law, I think rent control hurts people. It deters the building of new housing, and it makes what housing is out there more expensive.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I own, so lose that notion. And my last paragraph, which is the crux of the issue for me, is that rent control is, on balance, bad for everyone. Some few renters benefit, but other renters lose, and so do landlords. Setting aside the landlords entirely, since they are subhuman and do not deserve equal protection under the law, I think rent control hurts people. It deters the building of new housing, and it makes what housing is out there more expensive.

Aw, c'mon. Set up my scenario of ordering lawyers to work cheap for the poor, and I bet people will be streaming into law school, curing that shortage within a few years.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


Yes, buckos, that means that someone can build a big ol' apartment building across the street from your new McMansion.

Mmmm! Houston for everyone!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think we disagree less than you think. I'm all for non-geographic-based subsidies; I think that's the best way to avoid groupings based on welfare. I'd likely have a smaller pool of eligible tenants than you might name, but we do need to keep (some certain select) people housed.

Interesting. I think there would be real merit to a system in which the government could subsidize private housing for low-income persons by way of vouchers or tax-advantaged rents. This would cause welfare and public assistance activists to howl, because it would break up their constitutents' "community" (which is really nothing other than a political constituency conveniently housed in one easy-to-canvass building), but it would really be the best thing for everyone involved.

If a welfare recipient could, in a perfect world, take a housing voucher to a private landlord and get an apartment in an economically diverse* neighborhood, that would go a long way toward breaking up the culture of poverty and dependence, because a housing-assistance family would be living alongside persons who've never been on the dole.

Oh, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

*Literally diverse, not a euphemism for lots of a single minority.