Comment by nothrabannosir | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nothrabannosir | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner.

Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe guarding their community, organising events for locals, tending to parks, churches; they created the neighbourhood. They added value to every single property. But God forbid they were not raised to “buy”: make way for the Propery Owner!

I find this incongruous with what I’ve seen around me time and time again. People who’ve suffered through the hardest times of an area get pushed out when it does better. They deserved it the most, but got hoodwinked for the newer, flashier wind.

Not unlike a spouse who stays with their partner through a tough disease, depression, or poverty, only to be dumped for a more beautiful and opportunistic competitor when the hardship has sailed.

I’m not a staunch anti gentrifier (hell, I gentrify!), but I find using the word “respect” a bridge too far.

On rent control and gentrification I don't have a strong opinion right now. But I'd argue that if one has the means to buy but chooses not to, I can't feel bad for them if they get pushed out by rising rents. Buying a house is a good way to establish roots in a community. For those who can't afford to buy I feel that the argument that gentrification is harmful has some merit though, of course if the renter has started in a bad neighborhood I wouldn't think it would typically be that expensive to buy.

To use your analogy, if you don't put a ring on it you might lose it [your partner]. At least if one is divorced there is likely some alimony.

I suspect much of the real problem with gentrification involves the legacy of redlining and other abuses of vulnerable populations, like predatory contract loans and subprime mortgages. If populations such as inner-city blacks weren't systematically prevented from purchasing property in past decades gentrification would probably be much less a hot-button issue.

> If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect?

Absolutely! You completely deserve respect! Of course, every human being deserves some effing respect.

What "respect" means in terms of public policy is sometimes a complex question. I think the person you're responding to is using it in a legalistic sense, where "disrespect" could probably be replaced with "abrogating" or "breaching". Your usage seems a tad bit different.

> Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads?

No, but rent control is counterproductive and hurts many of the people it purports to help. What are its effects?

It encourages landlords to neglect properties. As one socialist economist quipped, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." After World War II, Paris enacted rent control leading to the loss of tens of thousands of existing units. When rent control was banned in Cambridge, MA, the valuation of never-controlled properties rose more rapidly than previously rent controlled properties. This implies that the never-controlled properties were better maintained.

It accrues financial gains to people who tend to be older and more affluent. People with lucrative employment are more able to stay in place for longer. They can ride out the downturns.

It limits supply. This increases median rents for newly available units. It discourages the construction of new units.

It encourages over consumption. Empty nesters don't downsize. This makes it harder for young families to find housing. SF has the lowest portion of children of any major American city.

It privatizes a public problem.

As far as solving a housing crisis goes, rent control is about as helpful as arson.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com