Rent control doesn’t always lower rents

Using a 1994 law change, we exploit quasi-experimental variation in the assignment of rent control in San Francisco to study its impacts on tenants and landlords. Leveraging new data tracking individuals’ migration, we find rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco. Landlords treated by rent control reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent by selling to owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law.

That is from a new AER piece by Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade and Franklin Qian.

Comments

Cool.

Or, How Do-Gooders Do Damage.

Yep. Could also be filed under 'gun control'.

"Marcia!" "Marcia!" "Marcia!"

"Control!" Notice a pattern?

But, their intentions were good.

Everything they (do-gooders, liberals, progressives, socialists) touch turns to poo-poo. Their counterproductive progressive policies and fatuous fantasies - CA has the highest poverty rate in America - It's as if lefties promote poverty and ignorance.

What has the ruling class gotten right in the past 40 years?

Give them more control. Brilliant!

One reason for the fear and loathing of President Trump is that his wildly popular and yugely successful policies have demonstrated what losers are the entrenched ruling elites.

But the stepchild or rent control is "affordable housing". It isn't "affordable" it's subsidized. Usually by forcing the builder to increase the cost of the units they sell to the people who actually work for a living. And thus the cost of housing increases and consequently the cost of rents increase. And because the rents increase we must have more affordable housing and rent control all paid for by the workers and controlled by the politicians.

Trump, like it or not, is part of the ruling class. What does he do when he gets into office? Give tax breaks to the swamp. Starts a trade war which raises the price of everything. Hands out more crony bailouts. Starts a real war in Yemen and becomes the all-time drone king. Renews NSA surveillance. He's basically a Bush-lite.

The best possible outcome to the 60 year trade war China has been waging on us is that we stop doing any business with China and the jobs come home to the U.S.

Please enlighten us on how China was swinging its economic might during the Eisenhower administration.

Spoken like someone who was not alive during the Eisenhower administration or was too young to be aware.

They waged war by forcing American businesses to manufacture in China? Oh yeah that never happened. They forced American consumers to buy their goods? Oh yeah never happened.

The EU also has tariffs on China for steel dumping, solar panels and bicycles. Some tariffs are around 15 years old.

Sometimes people need to be told “no.”

Was it China who hacked into the government and stole federal employees’ information during the Obama era?

I think we are in a Cold War.

Don’t make China mad isn’t an option.

I'm recalling around about 1985 an initiative campaign in California in protest of car insurance rates. It was Time or Newsweek who interviewed a mess of people including this professional-business type in a handsome suit photographed in tandem with his wife. She's quoted as complaining they were being penalized for 'having nice cars' and shouldn't be expected to shell out so much for insuring their Beemer (which was depicted in the background). I was wondering how many 'colleagues' of her husband went to ambulance-chasing school. What Truman Capote said about California: "You lose one point off your IQ for every year you stay out there".

It's amazing the alignment of interest and sentiment incorporated with campaigns against landlords and campaigns for publicly subsidized real estate. Okupier types get to protest, local politicians get to play to the okupiers, the mediaswine, and to downmarket equivalents of that California couple with the Beemer (not to mention developers who get the odd contract here and there); and later generations of fixers get bon bons to distribute as the market gets ever more dysfunctional. More patrons, more clients MOAR awardable housing!

Feel better now, hun?

It's important to reconsider rent control.

Obviously, rent controls cannot _decrease rent prices_, since on the lower bound those are driven by the equity and operating costs of landlords, and the existing supply in the rental market. Controls in some markets may deter some unproductive speculative behaviour, but ultimately, affordability will be provided by more supply vs demand.

But rent controls are very useful in another aspect: they provide security of tenure to tenants, i.e. they allow tenants to exert more control over their living conditions, and develop roots in the communities they live in. (Indeed, iirc this is mentioned as a driving factor in the ballot measure that led to the 1994 law change.)

Without some rent stabilization + just-cause eviction regime, landlords always exert a degree of economic control over their tenants; even high-income and otherwise privileged tenants have to be careful exerting their contract rights, or else face punitive or arbitrary evictions.

Without security of tenure, tenants are disincentivized from making long term investments in their communities, which decreases their ability to form professional or social networks. Neighbourhoods with high turnover rates also suffer from higher crime rates, as there are fewer stable "eyes on the street" helping to manage the community.

Furthermore, a meta study a few years ago also concluded that security of tenure may be linked to increased health outcomes (i.e. heart disease, mental health and so on) – presumably due to a lower background level of chronic stress that accompanies insecure housing. We provide homeowners with security of tenure via a variety of subsidies; why shouldn't tenants also get to enjoy that security?

In this vein, the Diamond et al paper shows rent stabilization regimes to be quite effective at providing some measure of security of tenure: "rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco".

MIT researchers found basically the opposite result - removal of rent control and gentrification significantly reduces crime:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23914

It doesn't seem like the south side of Chicago is dangerous because of the constant influx of new neighbors.

The key part here is gentrification tho, which was accelerated by the decontrol event. If you displace the existing population with folks less likely to commit crimes, that seems like a reasonable causal chain.

But tenants could insulate themselves from price increases by either paying a premium to the landlord or to a 3rd party "insurer". Society could even standardize and subsidize this kind of arrangement if the positive externalities are significant.

Instead we have a system of distorted incentives where landlords have no reason to improve their properties and every reason to pressure out their longest-standing tenants.

Coase Theorem!

+1. A renter could negotiate a long term lease, but then that means that the renter would have to bear the costs if he wants to move out early.

either paying a premium to the landlord or to a 3rd party "insurer"

Isn't... this.....a....rent....increase?

You are ignoring the obvious. The reason that rent increases is because it is worth the higher price. Forcing the landlord to take a loss won't encourage more landlords and more rental units. Rent control is a feel good non-solution.

“Security of tenure” is achieved by ownership. If you want that, buy, don’t rent.

But people can't AFFORD to buy ....

"In this vein, the Diamond et al paper shows rent stabilization regimes to be quite effective at providing some measure of security of tenure: "rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco"."

But what they never do is explain why 'security of tenure' is important to safeguard for tenants - but owners can go fuck off.

Or why being locked into one part of town - or even one town as now you can't chase a job in another city without your rent moving back up to the market rate - is good for renters.

>But what they never do is explain why 'security of tenure' is important to safeguard for tenants - but owners can go fuck off.

Owners have security of tenure; there are no private persons who can arbitrarily evict homeowners.

>Or why being locked into one part of town - or even one town as now you can't chase a job in another city without your rent moving back up to the market rate - is good for renters.

"Locked in" is doing a lot of work here. Who is locked in and why? If tenants are rational actors, and this new job in another city doesn't pay more than the rent delta, then it sounds like they're better off staying put.

Again, it's telling to contrast this with homeowners: the same dynamic is even worse for homeowners, who are far more locked in! Should homeowner's mortgage rates fluctuate according to their city's housing stock supply?

"Owners have security of tenure; there are no private persons who can arbitrarily evict homeowners."

Their right to raise rent and kick out bad tenants is being raped. This is not 'security of tenure'.

if they're bad tenants, then they can be evicted for-cause. otherwise, i hope ppl who read the comments in a blog about economics don't actually think people have a natural right to increase their land rents ;).

"if they're bad tenants, then they can be evicted for-cause."

Not if they're in the wrong jurisdiction.

' i hope ppl who read the comments in a blog about economics don't actually think people have a natural right to increase their land rents ;)."

Of course they due, and would-be customers have the right to say no.

Obviously you've never been a landlord. Lawyers appear out of nowhere, suing you for offenses you didn't know exist, while the bad tenant continues to live rent-free on your property for months or, in some jurisdictions, years.

I don't think anyone has a natural right to receive any price other than what is set in the market by supply and demand.

Vexatious customers are occasionally the cost of doing business. You think only landlords get sued by crazy people?

Again, consider the power imbalance between the two actors. It's totally true that some landlords get screwed by shitty tenants, but the ratio and potential of abuse is, on average, wildly in the landlord's favour.

"Without some rent stabilization + just-cause eviction regime, landlords always exert a degree of economic control over their tenants; even high-income and otherwise privileged tenants have to be careful exerting their contract rights, or else face punitive or arbitrary evictions."

Your rent-stabilization and just-cause eviction regimes come from your lease. During the duration of your lease, your rent is stabilized and you can only be evicted for cause. Please explain why a renter should be allowed to force the renewal of a lease? These are contracts between willing people. Why should one party not be allowed to say 'I don't want to associate with you any more'?

But that's not what's really being demanded in those two terms. What's being demanding is that the renter has the freedom to leave at any time and that the owner MUST renew the lease - indefinitely - at the renter's whim.

>Please explain why a renter should be allowed to force the renewal of a lease?

Because the relationship between a landlord and a tenant is different from that of other goods and services providers and consumers.

There are always power and information asymmetries in any transaction, but when it comes to tenants and landlords the disparity in bargaining power is so disparate - for example, transaction costs for the tenant are much higher than that for the landlord - that in practice, absent these regulations, tenants upon lease renewal do not have a real freedom of contract.

"Because the relationship between a landlord and a tenant is different from that of other goods and services providers and consumers."

No it isn't.

"when it comes to tenants and landlords the disparity in bargaining power is so disparate"

Simply doesn't matter and isn't true in a functioning market. Calgary back when I was there for a little while had plenty of available places to rent. There was no 'power' held over me by the landlord.

"tenants upon lease renewal do not have a real freedom of contract."

Yes they do. You don't understand what 'freedom' is. No means no.

I'm a fancy person, so your mileage may vary, but I moved recently and the fixed costs of moving my household (gas, movers, wear and tear, boxes) were in the high hundreds of dollars. If you count in the opportunity cost of the moving labour (2-3 days?), well over a thousand bucks.

If you count in the opportunity cost of searching for housing, in our fucked market we spent thousands of dollars worth of our time. Again, my billable rate might be higher than yours.

So, let us imagine a the scenario where we have a dispute with our landlord. If my landlord, for whatever reason, tells me to go pound sand depending on how you measure it my transaction costs are anywhere from 2x-10x his costs.

Now, even in a well-functioning market with stable rents, the landlord can demand more rents independently of the market and, as long as the delta is less than my transaction costs, it'll be rational of me to pay it.

This power imbalance grows the more fucked the rental market is and the poorer the tenant is. Hundreds of dollars and a couple days off work is not a big deal for me, but can wreck someone with very low-income.

That's not freedom in my book!

So you're in favor of moving cost control.

You have absolutely no idea what the costs to a landlord are.

I know exactly what the landlord's costs are: within the contract agreement with my landlord, in case I broke the lease and left early, he charged a set fee for covering the cost of finding new tenants.

LOL there's no way your weekend amounts to thousands of dollars of lost opportunity cost.

We probably spent in well excess of 30 hours actively looking - looking at listings, booking showings, submitting bids, etc. That's thousands of dollars of *my* time.

"Without security of tenure, tenants are disincentivized from making long term investments in their communities, which decreases their ability to form professional or social networks. "

wut?

Renters don't make investments in their communities. Because they're not planning on being there long-term. All their interactions are short term. Because they're renting and expect to move elsewhere permanently at some point. And how does this prevent them from making *professional* networks? Last time I checked, people weren't self-segregating into occupational districts. And what about social networks? What is it about moving around a city that prevents you from having family and friends?

>Renters don't make investments in their communities. Because they're not planning on being there long-term. All their interactions are short term. Because they're renting and expect to move elsewhere permanently at some point.

I would suggest that this logic is cyclical; tenants can't plan on being somewhere long term *because they lack security of tenure*.

Due to the nature of homeownership subsidies in North America, the majority of tenants over say, the age of 35 are likely to be simply too poor to ever own. Being a tenant is not simply a temporary condition.

Actually there are lifetime renters. My grandfather was one. I think he added quite a bit to his community - he was a rabbi. He lived in New York City at a time when condos hadn't yet been invented. While I usually take the side of owners in these discussions, that is not the only possible side of the story.

Security of tenure for a family with school aged children is worthy of discussion. Not so much for grandma.

Rent control is a bad idea, but how you wean out of it is the issue which requires care. Otherwise, you might have a larger homeless population, or renter population (with children) moving in and out of schools during formative years of education. I would be interested in whether studies on rent control consider effects on mobility and how that impacts children's education or educational attainment. My wife volunteers at a school to help kids who need an extra boost in math, english, etc. One common feature of kids with learning problems is that they are constantly moving, often to different schools.

But, while you talk of rent control, be sure to talk about money and tax breaks given to developers for "affordable housing".

Are they moving because the rent got bumped up, or other reasons?

I don't know. It's hard to ask an 8th grader.

Sometimes insights come through. Bet it's more like Dad went to jail or lost his job, not that rent went up 10%

I think that, in the some situations, price controls are justified to prevent social/economical systemic disruption. Brazil succeded applying price controls to fuels.

Tons of regimes have 'succeeded in applying price controls'. Not one has actually ever succeeded in applying price controls and maintaining supply though.

No, not even Brazil.

Yet, Brazil was rescued from the brink of catastrophe and social convulsion by the imposition of price controls.

Economic calculation is impossible if key prices are changing all the time. Futhermore, some price changes create what Brazilian experts call the "waterfall effect". It means they affect the whole economy because they are related to key inputs.

No it wasn't. Price controls have been a disaster there as much as anywhere.

No, they haven't at all. They rescued the economy from the brink of disaster, and the government has the total support of a grateful population. Maybe we should study the Brazilian approach more carefully instead of dismissing our friends' experience in such a cavalier way that is a terrigle affront to the Brazilian-American friendship and the dignity of the Brazilian nation!!

I dare you back up what you're saying with citations, keeping in mind that Brazil has been such a mess they had to elect Bolsonaro to get it set right.

The cost of something is the cost of something.

No, it is not. Price controls enabled the last government to end bloodlessly a truckers' strike which threatend to destroy the economy. Under the current government, price controls allow workers and entrepreneurs to make solid plans instead of being subkected to uncertainty and speculation. Suffices to say that, after years of retraction, the economy is growing again.

the dignity of the Brazilian nation!!

I thought they lost that when they were defeated by Paraguay. I know, I know Uruguay helped them.

Brazil actually defeated Paraguay and killed 90% of its male population. The Cisplatines (the so-called "Uruguayans") and Argentinians were worse than useless. I would rather 1,000 Paraguayans divisions before me than a single Argentinian or "Uruguayan" behind me, backing me.

The mother of then-future Brazilian President Deodoro da Fonseca had several sons who were fighting against Paraguay. When she was told there were talks in Brazil's capital about reaching a peace treaty with Paraguay, she said that she would rather have all her sons dead and buried in Paraguayan than ever seeing them bqck without the final victory. That's the good, old Brazilian spirit!! "Come back with your shield or on it."

She got her wish when Benjy's Boys made their way down to Rio in 1891 and killed Da Fonseca and sacked Rio.

Does it ever?

No, but you don't really need to explain that to somebody with a basic understanding of economics. The inherent issue is that rent control is about emotion over logic. And no logical argument is going to hold sway.

that's not a necessary consideration. It's not venison. Rent barely matters in understanding demographics. It's not on any axis.

This is one of those issues where I just want to weep with exasperation. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of economics and/or a cursory observation of what's going on in rent controlled markets that rent control does not work as advertised.

And yet, it remains politically popular, to the point that OTHER municipalities are considering rent control regulations, because there seems to be some sort innate "stupid bone" (you might call it) in the human brain which makes people think that you can just pass a law to regulate prices, and prices will do what you tell them to.

What the hell is wrong with people? I think we need to devote a field of study to the topic of "why people persist in believing dumb things despite all evidence to the contrary". It could be like the anti-progress-studies, the study of what's wrong with humans that stops us from figuring shit out.

What I don't understand, and weep with exasperation over, is why cities give real estate developers money and tax breaks for "affordable" housing, or why they give money to them for any reason.

I mean, you could build so many stadiums with that money.

Are the developers keeping the money and not building the affordable housing? If they are doing as asked then maybe talk to your politicians who are buying this affordable housing. It's like complaining to the dealer from who you bought a Yugo. You're the idiot who bought the Yugo.

I wouldn't give a penny to developers.

Neither would I, but it's not the developers wasting the money, it's those who are forcing them to build 'affordable' housing. Put the blame where it belongs.

The usual practice, at least in California, is to require real estate developers to set aside 20 percent of multi-family projects for "affordable" tenants. Tax breaks? Hahaha.

The city of LA now is planning to build "affordable" homes for the homeless or people with low incomes on public (free) land at an estimated construction costs that start at $400,000 a unit.

Also in LA, the spiffy new USFL soccer stadium was funded entirely by private investors, who also were required to pay for traffic mitigation improvements.

Are you sure they aren't receiving tax money or breaks for the set asides. That's what they do here.

What also makes me mad are developers who build luxury apartments and get tax increment financing (reduced taxes) or tax cuts for their buildings.

"An investigation by the New York Times has found that Donald Trump has received at least $885 million in tax breaks, subsidies, and grants for his apartment, hotel, and office developments in New York City, based on analysis of the city’s tax, housing, and finance records. Indeed, Trump seems to have worked to extract as many incentives and exemptions as he could out of the New York government for his real-estate projects — something the candidate has often boasted about himself, having repeatedly explained that, as a businessman, he always fights to pay as little tax as possible. (Of course, since Trump has thus far refused to release his tax returns, it’s impossible to know how much of that is also true when it comes to Trump’s personal finances.) In addition, the new report is only focused on Trump’s New York developments, and as the candidate explained to the Times, he has “gotten incentives in other parts of the world as well,” though he insists that “in many cases, [the incentives] made the difference between building and not being able to build.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/09/report-trump-received-usd885-million-in-new-york-tax-breaks.html

This isn't about $885 million, It's about Trump. Derange much?

This is about the wealthy who get subsidies to build high rise apartments to house the wealthy.

I mean, these people would be homeless if there would be no subsidies for wealthy living.

Here is a recent NYT article about the wealthy and tax breaks for opportunity zones:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/business/tax-opportunity-zones.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Part of those studies should look at why we don't seem to have retarded rent control laws in Alberta and Texas AFAIK.

This aptly demonstrates why we need to take power away from the people and local governance structures in particular. We also need some kind of means of opting out of these laws. A network of certified people who've agreed not to abide by rent control and other rent laws.

They're coming to Texas, eventually. Austin, at the minimum. It's becoming more and more like California. The whole affordable housing requirement is already a thing, as are the gentrification complaints, and the city council has gone on "fact-finding" missions to San Francisco, of all places, to see how they're handling the homeless issue (and not as a "what not to do" thing). Rent control is only a couple steps further down the line.

They're not stupid, they just have different goals than you do. As the paper reluctantly concludes, rent control reduces displacement. That means that the law is working as intended.
Of course then the authors abandon data to make dire predictions about the future: "lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law". Again, market rents are not the point. The point is to let people who already live in SF stay in SF, and that the city will try to deal with the financial consequences of this basically humane policy.
The surprising thing is how much time economists spend complaining about rent control while the California-wide rentier fantasy known as Proposition 13 never seems to come up. Aren't you a bit ashamed of how much time you spend picking on SF renters?

"They're not stupid, they just have different goals than you do. "

Stupid, immoral goals, like turning SanFran into a club for people who already live there and dubbing this asininity 'humane'.

Do you think it's immoral that only SF residents get to vote in SF elections?

there seems to be some sort innate "stupid bone" (you might call it) in the human brain

The human brain didn't evolve to understand complex economic ideas and be able to use that understanding to vote for sensible policies. That's never going to come naturally for the majority. What does come naturally is loyalty, tribalism and us-vs-them thinking. Bastiat wrote about the seen and unseen and candle-makers more than 150 years ago. Have these important lessons become widely known since then? Hell no. Will they in the future? Again, hell no. These ideas are never going to be widely understood. I expect these same debates to go on for the rest of my life and on indefinitely into the future afterwards.

And so, want to encourage industry? Impose tariffs on foreigners. Or break some windows so we'll get rich having to make new ones (or use this modern method). Want rents to stop rising? Pass a law freezing them. Want low-income workers to have more money? Pass a law mandating that they be paid more. What could be more natural than these obvious, straightforward approaches?

Look, your pessimism is unfounded. We’ve gotten approximately 14 percent of the population to grasp supply and demand. Massive progress!

Price controls anywhere are deceptive and lead to mis-allocation of resources. consider Illinois, they have permanently priced pensions, up, and live in a violent, bankrupt city. Price control are nonsense.

private equity companies typically buy companies by negotiating on an rational basis. on both ends the logic is flawed. The renter has agreed to a higher price in the future, moving on up. The owner has captured a tax, moving on down.

"...and lowers displacement from San Francisco."

So, just as the way to increase supply of detached single family housing is changing zoning to allow tearing down single family homes to build multi-story apartments, the way to increase affordable rental housing is to evict current residents and raising rents.

The problem is the logic of increasing supply by cutting costs, ie, paying workers, by not building housing capital complementary capital.

Very few places lack vacant land, even islands often have vacant brownfield land which is "cheap" to rent if you are willing to pay the high cost of declining health.

The problem is the vacant land lacks the capital complements needed to use the land:
Transport is the first and most obvious. As transport must cross the land claimed by many private land owners, government must pick winners and losers and transfer wealth from the former to the latter.

But as water is critical to both life and industry, water and sewer capital is a critical complement. Depending on geology, the lack of public water and sewer mandates large lot sizes. Ground water replenishes a few inches per year in many places, so a large land area is required to ensure stable water supply. And the water extracted must be disposed of, and to filter and purify it naturally, it must percolate through soils slowly, also requiring land area. And for safety, the well and perc bed need separation. Nature works at it's own pace.

Costly technology built by labor can supply and safely dispose of water, or recycle it, allowing dense housing, much "faster" than nature. Basically, rain falls much faster than the land can absorb it and it runs off in rivers to lakes and oceans. As a common resource, government allocates ownership and protects it. Protecting water resources is done by sewer systems, paid for based on water used for a purpose. Government is always involved, often by paying workers to build capital to supply and protect the common water needed by households and businesses.

There are other housing complement capital assets which are rather costly. Schools, police, parks, business, industry.

You can not increase housing supply without increasing costs.

As costs are the wages paid to workers, workers must pay higher costs, but they have the higher income to pay the higher costs. Economies are zero sum, incomes must equal costs. Tanstaafl.

I note those who both claim private property ownership and less government are ideal never buy any of the abundant and often cheap vacant land to build lots of housing at low cost to rent at market rate to make high profits. Why don't they build low cost transportation by buying private land to connect their low cost, market rent housing to areas of housing shortages instead of calling on government to solve the problem by picking winners and losers without compensating the losers economist pick as central planners.

Forget it man, it's mulp ...

"As costs are the wages paid to workers, workers must pay higher costs, but they have the higher income to pay the higher costs. Economies are zero sum, incomes must equal costs. Tanstaafl."

Repeating retarded nonsense ad infinitum will not make it true.

In instantaneous time, economies really are zero-sum. Over time, the supply of goods changes.

Sorry, my comment assumes that Pareto optimality has already been achieved and that all gains from trade have already been exploited.

If we are not Pareto efficient, then instantaneous transactions cause ripples which average out over indefinite time. But you should skip time, instead say that a ripple averages out over the number of transactions needed to loop back. Loops in graph theory create cycles in statistical theory.

It's refreshing to see people so naive as to believe that politicians and activists who promulgate these controls have any motive but to secure rents at less than market rates. Of course the benefit is to current renters (voters) and is short-term! Who with an ounce of sense believes for a second that they care about the general health of their city in the medium-to-long term? If anyone finds it shocking that it's all about "me, us and ours", then they're not paying attention. (You know, the Democrats' mantra: "Whats yours is ours, and what's ours is mine")

There's always the shipping container idea. Presidential candidate Andrew Yang speaks out in their favor, which seems to indicate that the government has no intention of doing anything effective about housing. If progressives are giving up without a fight on the possibility of housing all Americans decently in real houses, I really have to wonder what the future will be for average and lower income Americans.

"I was in a shipping container apartment in Las Vegas that cost only $30,000 and was downright appealing. There are things we can do to make housing more affordable for many Americans.

— Andrew Yang (@AndrewYang) August 11, 2019"

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/08/22/homeless-people-in-britain-call-andrew-yangs-shipping-container-housing-solution-mental-torture-not-for-human-beings/

More California cities are making camping spots and legalizing car living. In Fresno California, we have an entire neighborhood of homeless, drugged teenagers and young adults. They find accommodations under the freeway overpasses.

During housing busts, property owners board the places up to keep out the drugged and brain damaged. It is either keep them on the streets or send them to LA where the mayor welcomes them with open arms, provides drug treatment and puts them in nice condos.

We should all take up Mayor Garcetti invitation and go live in LA in one of the free government condos.

It would be a huge leap forward for California to embrace shipping container housing. It will never happen.

$30,000
Maybe the shipping container cost $30000, putting it in Las Vegas. a lot more.

Yes, the problem is rent control.

Not property zoning.

Egads.

We need more rent control.
Every talk about "basic income" or higher minimum wage would just be more money for landlords otherwise and also defeat purpose of higher minimum wage (even if that purpose is a little fuzzy)

Rent control always and instantly increases market rent by reducing supply. Rent controlled units are effectively withdrawn from the market.

Comments for this post are closed