ShimbyHimbo
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaeqqjk wrote
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaaudvr wrote
Reply to comment by pgm123 in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
I understand what you're arguing, but 35 years is more generous than similar laws around the country, which typically use 15-20 years.
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaatffj wrote
Reply to comment by pgm123 in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
Yes, which many in this thread believe isn't enough. 35 years would only add 12 years of units with the newest being in the late 80s. Every year, it would add a year more of units, but I would have to look at building permits issued by year to determine if that's even a significant number of units.
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaat2di wrote
Reply to comment by ShimbyHimbo in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
Here's a study to backup my assertions:
https://www.cura.umn.edu/research/minneapolis-rent-stabilization-study
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaaszpy wrote
Reply to comment by WhiskeyTesticles in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
Just want to reply to your edit. There is limited evidence that shows a direct effect on limiting supply. See the UMN study on Minneapolis Rent Stabilization.
https://www.cura.umn.edu/research/minneapolis-rent-stabilization-study
Additionally it's silly to say "price control any other product" when housing operates very differently from consumer goods. Housing is particularly unique due to it's fixed location, the lack of standardization (units can have significant differences) its status as a basic necessity, the barriers to entry for creating it, the local market effects, the cultural norms, and all of the factors around the financing of housing. The United States has had limited interventions in price ceilings that mostly relate to emergency situations, so most of what we have to go off of are functionally economic thought experiments where we set "all else equal" and even the most adherent followers of classical economics would tell you that models do not map accurately to the real world.
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaapz1q wrote
Reply to comment by pgm123 in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
35 years just means that rent stabilization only applies to older, likely outdated and lower quality units.
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaapne3 wrote
Reply to comment by ShimbyHimbo in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
For those down voting me, if you're going to do that then you could at least tell me where I'm wrong. And don't bother citing the long debunked Berkeley studies.
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaaosza wrote
Reply to comment by WhiskeyTesticles in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
Developer-owners are the exception. Most develop to sell immediately, or after 5-15 years. Their selling price is largely dictated by the cost of debt, land, labor, and materials, and projected NOI. Then of course, there are developers fees and market fluctuations. Of those factors, only NOI has any direct connection with rent control.
If rent control doesn't take effect until year 15-20, allows for inflationary increases + an additional x% buffer + and generally includes vacancy decontrol, which is basically every rent control/stabilization plan in the country, then there is functionally no connection with profitability to develop. Rents are unrestricted for years and minimally constrained with opportunities to increase infinitely in the future.
Rent control does have a strong connection with is developer/landlord fear mongering. What arguments like yours do is take developers at their own word rather than recognizing that they are inherently regulation averse entities that will always argue that anything that stops them from making the maximum possible profit isn't just bad for business, it's bad for society. There's some nuggets of truth there among the lies and as we do primarily rely on private market rate developers and landlords to produce and sell us housing, incentivising their profit motives can be useful. But we don't have to be rubes about it or let them walk all over us.
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaabnad wrote
Reply to comment by Fert1eTurt1e in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
The data is very mixed on that, no conclusive study has shown that rent control on its own reduces housing starts. Not to mention that multifamily properties are rarely held from construction through the period when rent control schemes kick in (typically no sooner than 15 years). In fact, standard property development pro formas typically factor for a sale of the property at year 15. Not to mention that while rent control does increase the tenure of tenants (which is a good thing!), very few rent control schemes actually have vacancy control, meaning that when the units do change over, the units can reset to whatever price the landlord deems reasonable. Many rent control schemes even provide allowances for landlords to make upgrades and increase rent accordingly.
At best, "rent control" in the US can at best be called stabilization, and often allow for above market increases. For example, under California's rent stabilization policies, which allows for up to a 10% increase per year, rent stabilized tenants sometimes receive a higher increase in rent than comparable non-stabilized units.
ShimbyHimbo t1_ja9it0z wrote
Reply to comment by mimaiwa in D.C. Tenants in Rent-Controlled Units Could See as Much as 8.9 Percent Increases by rennbrig
Statewide rent stabilization in California is based on 15 years from the date the housing was placed into service, which usually means when the certificate of occupancy was issued. Local cities and counties generally have a similar 1970s date due to a statewide law prohibiting rent control on newer units.
ShimbyHimbo t1_j9i07u7 wrote
Reply to comment by onlyforyouA1_ in The Panda Express that shows its open at 2024 Concessions Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310 is actually for Pentagon Workers. I walked 20 minutes only to realize I can't get in. Annoying by onlyforyouA1_
Howard China is not that far from your starting location and it's much better IMO.
Submitted by ShimbyHimbo t3_z3tops in washingtondc
ShimbyHimbo t1_iuhhash wrote
The important part is what are they trying to "save" it from?
ShimbyHimbo t1_jaeqrz1 wrote
Reply to Marjorie Taylor Greene "attacked" by woman while at restaurant by 10tonheadofwetsand
Good.