“A survey of 660 likely voters conducted May 17-26 found 48 percent favoring Prop. 99, with 30 percent opposed and 22 percent undecided, according to the poll results. Those supporting Prop. 98 stood at 33 percent, with 43 percent opposed and 24 percent undecided.”
“The results contrast with the two surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California that showed declining support for both propositions between March and May. Those polls showed support among likely voters for Prop. 99 declining to 44 percent from 53 percent, while support for Prop. 98 fell to 30 percent from 37 percent.”
“The margin of error was plus or minus 4.1 percentage points for the Field Poll and plus or minus three percentage points for the Public Policy Institute polls.”
Prop. 98 failing, 99 a toss-up – Field Poll [SFGate]
Proposition 98: An Interesting Perspective And Opportunity For “Play” [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by resp

    Thanks for posting. As expected, 98 won’t pass.
    Don’t want to repeat my opposition to rent control from the attached thread but just pointing out that many owners in SF (including me) will use the continuation of rent control to their advantage.
    There will be more Ellis Acts, more tenants purposely displaced, more VRBOs, more TICs, more landlord/tenant friction, more cutout beams ;), fewer rental units, abnormally high rents and more profits going into the hands of fewer owners.
    I have personally been deciding whether to rent, TIC, live in, or VRBO a 2-unit building and with prop 98 failing you can be sure I’m never going to let a renter take “ownership” of my building again.

  2. Posted by Monkey

    Rent control is not the only reason SF still has a middle class.
    And rents would NOT go down if we abolished rent control; quite to the contrary, they would skyrocket. The argument that landlords have to charge really high rent on newly vacant units to make up for rent controlled units is false. Landlords charge as much as possible no matter what (I know I was one.) because getting the most return for your investment is sound business. Rent control is the only thing stopping them.

  3. Posted by paco

    wrong monkey, bad monkey.
    rent control severly restricts supply.
    see econ 101 for the relationship between supply and demand

  4. Posted by San FronziScheme

    paco, agreed 100% for once.
    Rent control prevents rotation and clogs the rental market. It also pushes some landlords to bail out and sell their units as TICs which will be owner-occupied, removing supply.

  5. Posted by nonanon

    wrong paco, bad paco.
    see boston for what happens in real-life versus economic theory.
    “The best real-life example of what happens after rent control is eliminated is Massachusetts, where a state ballot measure in 1994 outlawed such statutes in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge.
    A subsequent study of Cambridge by economist Henry Pollakowski, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, found that the elimination of rent control did spark investment in previously regulated properties. Spending on renovations and repairs rose an estimated 20 percent over what would have been spent before deregulation.
    The study did not address the question most important to many: What happened to rents?
    A New York Times article in 2000, however, quoted a spokeswoman for Boston’s mayor saying the average rent for two-bedroom apartments had increased more than 75 percent since the end of rent control. A survey by a large Cambridge landlord found rents on previously rent-controlled apartments doubled.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/05/07/MN4V10FTG0.DTL

  6. Posted by Pear Drops

    Yeah: JUST what SF needs if rent control is abolished.
    “the pace of residential construction in Boston has accelerated since rent control was repealed in 1994. True, too, more neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous or dilapidated are becoming gentrified and more attractive to developers. But equally true is the fact that more working-class families, faced with soaring rents, are moving two or three area codes beyond the 617 exchange, and that homelessness and overcrowding are cresting. So parsing out how rent decontrol has influenced these changes is subject to a good deal of interpretation.”
    Erm not really. Owners will maximize their profits, That’s human nature.

  7. Posted by San FronziScheme

    The real issue is: can we go on socializing housing using private property?

  8. Posted by resp

    “Rent control is not the only reason SF still has a middle class.”
    Do tell us why SF is specifically so different than all ther other free-market cities in the country that it needs rent control to keep a middle class? Who really cares about your own definition of middle class?
    The real issue is why should government screw with the free market?

  9. Posted by jamie

    Oh God …. something tells me voters don’t have the notion they can and should reject both of these stupid propositions.

  10. Posted by Trip

    In Boston “the average rent for two-bedroom apartments had increased more than 75 percent since the end of rent control.”
    That very well may be true, but it is not the end of the inquiry. Of course average rents will increase immediately following the end of rent control — that is because the vast majority of renters had been artificially subsidized by their landlords. So long-time renters locked in at rents that are far below market rates surely will pay more if rent control is ended. No debate there.
    But what happened to market rents — higher or lower? I.e. assuming that (as in SF) vacant units could be rented at market rents, for a 2-br on the market shortly before and after rent control was ended, how did the rents compare? What about 10 years later? Also, what happened to investments in rental stock after rent control was ended — was the rental stock increased or improved? (Boston appears to have seen improvements). What were the eviction rates before and after rent control (e.g. an Ellised tenant doesn’t see much benefit from rent control)? What happened to housing prices as the rent-vs.-own equation was suddenly changed? These are just a few of the many issues impacted by rent control.
    I don’t know the answers. But it is not as simple as saying “rents went up on formerly rent-controlled units.” The current system in SF favors those who got in earlier at the expense of landlords and newer renters (who face a decreased rental supply and higher “market” rents). That may be the lesser evil or it may not be. But answering the question involves an analysis of a complex set of issues.

  11. Posted by view lover

    economics 101, right, basic academic ecnonomics, the kind that really does not apply to real life. Free markets, my a$$. The subprime mess is a result of free markets. Like it or not, our government is tied to everything we do. Free markets, can any of us survive without a bank or a credit card, we are slaves to the “free market”. So save that argument or thesis for passing your economics class. Real life does not play out that way.
    Rents in New York also went through the roof.
    The argument is to remove the poorer people and replacing them with richer people because they can afford higher rents. The rents would go up to market, stabilize and then keep rising, just like everything else. Then with the higher rents in place, other investors will jump in to create more housing to charge even more.
    The current residents will be forced out by those that can afford to pay more. We would end up with a more affluent population, which maybe is what some of you want.
    However, if I wanted to live in Manhattan, I’d move there.

  12. Posted by right

    Once again – the free market theorists are trotting out their discredited pseudo-theories again. Their latest line of horsesh*t is “removing rent control will decrease rents”. Right.
    And reducing taxes on the rich is good for the federal budget (see how well thats worked out) and better for the economy via the trickle down effect.
    Also, deregulation increases competition (like the phone companies).
    Ignore the hard facts of Boston. Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes.

  13. Posted by Ryan

    So, rents went up 75% from 1994 to 2000? That represents an annualized change of 9.8%. For comparison, the case-shiller price index for Boston went from 68.46 in June 1994 to 110.0 in July 2000, which is an annualized gain of 8.2%.
    Without knowing anything about population trends in the city of Boston over that period, or having any quote about how the price of rents went in non-rent controlled areas, or bothering to look up how average incomes changed over that period, I’m not willing to believe the “75% jump” is necessarily statistically significant or that the increase in rents was anything other than natural inflation and increased desirability. It may be or may not be; it says nothing about rent control as is.
    I don’t have any specific data on cambridge.

  14. Posted by intheknow

    the same faux-“economics 101″ argument — that the “release” of so many units into the market will stabilize rents at a price affordable to the average person — for abolishing rent control is really tired, and there’s simply no evidence supporting it.
    This is the same nonsense that often plauges discussions of developer impact fees. The same faux-economists often parrot the line that the imposition of fees will just increase the cost of units as developers pass on the costs to their buyers. Nonsense! The market bears what the market will bear — market-rate developers always charge the maximum that they can, they don’t keep prices lower out of good will. The only thing that impact fees hurt is the developer’s profit — that’s why developers fight against fees! If they could just raise prices to pass along the fees, developers simply wouldn’t care about fees.
    Further, the faux-economists only look at this from a pure economics point of view and fail to recognize that housing is just that — it is homes for real people with real families — and not a commodity. Housing can’t be treated, and isn’t, like pencils or sorghum or some other thing, where “consumers” can simply switch from one “supplier” to another depending on the best price. People can’t, and shouldn’t have to, just up and move to another City, away from their jobs, families, and friends, and uproot their lives just because a landlord could squeeze some more profit out of another potential tenant willing to pay more for the same unit. The same is true about health care – our hyper-privatized system in this country has done nothing but exponentially increase the cost of healthcare and generally decrease the standards available to the common person. Health care is no more a commodity than is housing.
    And finally, “rent control” in California is NOT actual rent control — it is rent stablization, a basic consumer protection. The government does not tell a landlord how much they can charge for a vacant unit, as is/was done in New York. When someone moves into a unit, they move there based on the fact that they can afford that market rent (at the time they move in), and they establish a home, budget, roots, jobs, etc. based on this premise. Just because the exteneral market and neighborhood conditions change around them and the landlord can now charge a lot more because the neighborhood is more desirable, the tenant who moved in when the neighborhood was less desirable, should not have their rent jacked up and be forced out. It’s the same principle behind Prop 13 — you bought your house for a certain price based on the market value when you bought it — that was what you could afford. Just because 20 years later your neighborhood becomes hip and valuable, you shouldn’t have your taxes skyrocket and have to pay through the nose to continue living in your own home.

  15. Posted by San FronziScheme

    intheknow,
    If there had been no economical incentive in the past, all these wonderful houses wouldn’t have been built. This is a boomtown, not Sofia or Bucarest. REAL people had dreams and made them happen.
    What is going on right now is that we are reaping the product of the hard work and entrepeneurship of our ancestors without giving much in return.
    Who will maintain these houses? Who will rebuild when they crumble (and you have to relocate your tenants)? Where will the money come from?

  16. Posted by scurvy

    The rent control issue in SF is not very cut and dry. While I do oppose the idea of rent control, we cannot abolish it in SF without first streamlining the real estate development process. This means ignoring the NIMBYs, streamlining the permitting process, and curtailing the city planner’s iron grip on the city. The argument behind abolishing rent control is that developers will notice the imbalance in supply and demand, build more housing, and correct the balance. That only works if the invisible hand is free to move where it wants and not filling out forms and paying bribes all day.
    A lot of economics is bunk — just because I’ll mow my own lawn to save $50 does not mean I’ll cut my neighbor’s grass too — just because I get a free checking account, it does not mean I’ve added $20/month to the GDP. But the basic tenets of economics are sound … in theory.
    intheknow, you’re the most naive person in SF if you think that residents don’t leave because of high rents and cost of living. Also, high rents dissuade people from moving into the city. How does rent control help them out?

  17. Posted by view lover

    rent controls do not help people moving into the city, they pay market rates, if they can’t they can’t move here. That has always been true, even for those that are now in rent controlled buildings.
    If rents are supposed to come down, where has this actually happened? And how does the rise in rents in Boston and New York fit into the economic models being spouted which “suggest” that they should have come down.
    The bottom line is those that can pay more can’t find the properties because someone is already living there.
    This is really an argument for moving people out because “I” can pay more instead of making it easier for development of new rental stock.
    Just look at the Tinity Place/Plaza and how long that has taken to get off the ground. That whole process/fiasco is more of a culprit to affordability and housing in general than rent control.

  18. Posted by Jim D

    Rent control discriminates against new renters, who are more likely younger, poorer, and just starting out, in favor of older, more affluent renters who’ve established themselves. It’s ageist, and slanted against the poor – exactly the same way that Prop 13 is, while cloaking itself in defending the poor.
    If you really want to help poor people afford rent, give them money – and impose a “rental tax” on all rental properties in the city to pay for it, if you want. If you don’t want to give them money, then you’re really just arguing for subsidized housing for the rich, since there’s no means test.
    At least be honest about it.

  19. Posted by paco

    @intheno
    RC limits annual rent increases to 60% of the reported cpi. maybe if this percentage were adjusted a more equitable balance could be reached btn subsidized rent and market rent.
    RC creates opportunities for profit that inevitably become too hard to resist (look at the huge growth of tic formation to see economics at work).
    housing IS a commodity, and price controls on commodities
    create more problems than they ever solve.

  20. Posted by por favor

    Rent control is a violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the United States Constitution.
    It’s also an illegal taking of economic benefits (ie. property rights) without due process, just cause or compensation.
    I hope this comes to a head and RC gets decimated at the Federal level.
    However, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  21. Posted by view lover

    Rent control discriminates against new renters, who are more likely younger, poorer, and just starting out, in favor of older, more affluent renters who’ve established themselves.
    Another assumption without any evidence to support it. Average income in SF is 75K, and that is skewed by the high income crowd, so the majority of renters are not rich. Housing takes up a big majority of income across the board. The people I know who rent are not rich, and that’s being honest. Besides, young renters can afford to have roomates and are more able bodied to work more than one job, hell I had to do both. That’s economic reality if you are not rich.
    Paco, given that housing IS a commodity, what do you call the intervention of the BofS and all the clowns in city hall, and is there a place for it in the “free market”? Why focus only on RC.
    Cherry picking things you don’t agree with based on economic theories is not the answer in dealing with the affordability of housing, which is way too complex. There are too many stakeholders in this game and a more equitable solution is needed other than removing RC via eminent domain reforms, which I believe the Supreme Court decided wrongly.
    Besides, it’s not going to pass, so why can’t proponents of reform think of something else that will address the overall housing issue! Same with prop 13, get creative and find a solution rather than addressing the usual suspects which are now permanent fixtures in our economic and political landscape.

  22. Posted by Jim D

    Rent control discriminates against new renters, who are more likely younger, poorer, and just starting out, in favor of older, more affluent renters who’ve established themselves.
    Another assumption without any evidence to support it.

    Use the census data, it’s easily findable via Google.
    Young people have lower incomes than older people (especially if you exclude seniors on public assistance, who are already eligible for housing assistance, however inadequate). New renters are more commonly young than established renters.
    You’re really disputing these two statements? Amazing.

  23. Posted by Jim D

    And as for:
    “get creative and find a solution rather than addressing the usual suspects ”
    I did. I proposed means testing. Why do you want to benefit the rich? A means test fixes this, and is the typical way to deal with this problem in the US political system for handouts.
    Your way is a handout for the rich. My way fixes it. Why is my way inferior?
    And if rent control is struck down (which I hope happens), my way is the way you have left, isn’t it?

  24. Posted by Man Date

    Here’s my solution.
    Do a one-time election if you are for or against Rent control. Those who are for Rent control gets sent the bill to cover the entire cost of the Rent control subsidy, calculated and certified by an Actuary. If you don’t pay, then your wages are garnished.
    Sounds pretty fair to me.

  25. Posted by view lover

    I don’t disagree that young people in general are poorer than older people. Or that younger people are moving to SF, I see them hanging out asking for money all the time. But older people were not alway rich, they had to work for it. It was not given to them on a plate. Besides, young people today stand to inherit the greatest amount of wealth in history, so don’t cry to me about young people having it tough and being poor. Young people should get in touch with their inner capitalist, just like Google if they want to live here. Or work more than one job and get roomates, that’s also an alternative.
    Why do you keep saying benefiting the rich? My old neighbor is on rent control, she can barely walk. I know a couple of people with disability who would lose their shelter. My other friends that rent and that still takes up alot of their limited incomes, even with rent control, and many of them have more than one job! You would just be gone with these people to benefit the poor young.
    Besides, do you think an average income of $75k is rich? There may be some making $25K and they are poor, but that does not mean that the person making $75K or $100K is rich.
    If means testing is a way to solve the problem, put it out there, go for it! See how far increasing taxes for your suggestion works.
    How about incentives to build rather than roadblocks! Again, look at Trinity and how many times the B of S kept coming back wanting more and more. Why does the Bayview project have to be on the ballot? Why can’t it just be done! Maybe creative was the wrong word, practical may be more appropriate.

  26. Posted by view lover

    who bears the cost of rent control now and what is it? Ask two actuaries and you’ll get two answers, ask a million and you’ll get a million different answers, but all actuaries can drown in an average inch of water.

  27. Posted by Rillion

    @man date:
    Here’s my solution.
    Do a one-time election if you are for or against Rent control. Those who are for Rent control gets sent the bill to cover the entire cost of the Rent control subsidy, calculated and certified by an Actuary. If you don’t pay, then your wages are garnished.
    Sounds pretty fair to me.
    ***
    Sure, if we can do that for all goverment policies. In favor of the war in Iraq? You get sent the bill. In favor of police and fire departments? You get sent the bill. In favor of elections to see who is in favor of various things so they can be sent the bill? You get sent the bill. Excellent, idea. I can be against everything and never have to pay a dime for anything.

  28. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    What all of you forget, or choose to ignore, is that both Prop 13 and rent control both are ways that people who have been here for a while discourage new immigration into the State.
    California is full, go home.

  29. Posted by Tina

    I would be very curious to know if the landlords screaming about subsidizing their tenants under rent control have any problem with the fact that as a result of prop 13 they pay much lower taxes than their neighbors who bought more recently. Let’s eliminate rent control AND repeal prop 13 – so EVERYBODY pays market rates. How about it?

  30. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Agreed. Prop 13 and rent control should be both eliminated.

  31. Posted by No Diff

    From an LL perspective:
    As a matter of pure economic principle, the cost of repealing prop 13 will be shouldered by consumers of the good, ie. renters.
    When the price of rice quadrupled recently, prices of burritos were increased to compensate.
    It makes no difference is all I’m saying. But as a renter, you will pay. If you think this is a win, by all means repeal prop 13.

  32. Posted by view lover

    I have not seen a response to my earlier question regarding how removing rent control lowers rents if that has not been the case in Boston or New York. How is SF different and why would that not happen here?
    Rent contol effects primarily SF, so why does it preclude people moving into the state? Also, isn’t California one of the most populated states if not the most populous? How many more people do you want and why?
    If you want SF to be like Manhattan or Boston, then jsut say it. Removing RC will change the City into a more affluent area buy kicking out those that are not able to pay the higher market rates, is that what you want? Over time of course, people’s suffering can be dealt with easier that way.
    How can you guys keep making this same statements without an explanation that is not economics 101 theory? Give me and some of “you guys” some answers, we’re not unreasonable, I just have not seen any thing beyond higher rents once rent controls are eliminated in the cities where this has actually happened.
    Outsourcing is also a great economic theory that many economists agree on, which is quite rare, and it’s been a huge success… for CEO’s.

  33. Posted by Trip

    View lover, as I stated earlier, I am not aware of any comprehensive analysis of what has happened in other cities that have eliminated rent control. I don’t have a position because I have nothing on which to base one. All I’ve seen on this thread is one cite to a Chron article quoting a spokeswoman for Boston’s mayor who said the average rent for two-bedroom apartments increased more than 75 percent in the 6 years after the end of rent control. And you made the assertion, citing to no analysis and providing no details, that NY rents went “through the roof.”
    It is no surprise that subsidized rents would go up after the subsidy is removed. But until we have some real analysis of what happens in the broad rental market over a longer timeframe in terms of rents, rental housing stock, population displacement, etc. in these situations, you and everyone else here are equally just asserting hypotheses and guesses. One cannot dismiss “economics 101 theory” out of hand without something more than just opposing speculation.

  34. Posted by right

    Prop 98 is going down. Sorry landlords. You’re unjustified windfall won’t be coming in this time.
    Better luck next time.

  35. Posted by viewlover

    trip, you sound analytical, but you are not analyzing anything nor are you adding anything new.
    Actually the rents in New York are through the roof. Not speculation, just look it up, and see what prospective renters are having to do in order to get an apartment. Real estate in general is also through the roof there, or have you not heard that either?
    Do you really need a comprehensive analysis before you can acknowledge the result in Boston? 75% is 75% regardless of how you get there. You may be neutral because you don’t feel comfortable without enough information. I don’t mind taking a position on what I can see and can assertain. I also don’t try and figure out if a snake is poisenous before I run the other way.
    My position is based on my own reasoning. As you mention, the subsidized rents will go up, that is enough for me to be against it. But going further, the average rent will increase to a higher number than it is today, a new base line will be established and the trend in the increases my subside, but the average is higher, and in time, given inflation and a growing economy, the prices will continue to go up given the limited supply and the desirability of the area. The people that could previously afford living in SF, subsidized as it may be, will be pushed out. A group of more affluent people who can pay the higher rents will take their place. This is the short run and in my opinion very likely. How does this help the poor younger population, and as I stated earlier on this thread, if this is what you want, go for it, but others will fight you on it.
    What will happen in the long run is anyone’s guess. I don’t discount economics, but it has its limits. How many economists are not sure if this nation is in a recession,( are these the same guys that are going to make the analysis you will need?) however, ask the family at the breakfast table in Ohio. Would you classify their answer as opposing speculation?
    And I’m not just being a hard-ass, but I’ve heard too many arguments that just don’t reflect the reality that I percieve. Again, until I can be educated into why rents have gone up, but won’t here, I can’t drink the kool-aid.

  36. Posted by anon

    Rents are way up in SF too. “Just look it up.” I suppose you can conclude this is because of rent control? “That is enough for me to be against it.”

  37. Posted by viewlover

    market rates are up, not rents under rent control. Don’t you understand the post?You anonymous clown.

  38. Posted by MedusaSF

    I’ve owned a smaller condo building in a prime part of San Francisco for many years and it just sits vacant. I’ll never rent it out because I refuse to deal with tenants. I have the feeling that the supply of units in desirable areas is going to be severely restricted over the next few years as landlords sell to investors who don’t need to rent out their properties. I can think of a half dozen examples in the blocks surrounding my building. The apartment across the street is about to be Ellised and turned into a SFH. A few doors down, a former SFH with multiple units is prepping to Ellis the current tenants. A multi-unit building two blocks away now sits vacant after the tenants were evicted last year. Another house with a basement unit also sits vacant on the same block while it awaits a remodel. Three blocks down, yet another two unit building sits vacant while architects figure out how to turn it into a functional SFH. I could go on and on and on. Rental property is vanishing and most people don’t even know it.

  39. Posted by need_F40

    Rent control is for parasites and losers. Losers who were too lazy or dumb to be a success. These unwashed masses cling to rent control out of bittereness for their shortcomings.
    Rent control is purely politically motivated. Economists generally agree that it does not work.
    In the end, the free market always wins. It’s only a matter of time before these sub-700 GMAT types get driven out

  40. Posted by CutThroughTheBS

    Long-term rent control is not a subsidy from landlord to tenant, it is a cross-subsidy from new-tenant to old-tenant.
    That in itself should make it obvious that it is a poor public policy. This also makes it clear that opponents of the phase-out-rent-control parts of Prop 98 are in the business of protecting their political base (existing, urban, long-term rental tenants) and not acting in the interests of renters in general.
    Landlords, at least those who understand their business economics, should support the rent-control aspects of Prop 98 because of the way that it will straighten out the market in available units for rent, it will end the guessing games of “how-much rent should I ask from a tenant who I think might stay 1 year, 5 years or lifetime”. Those aspects will likely improve the overall business cashflow regardless of whether the actual average or median asking rents actually increase or not.
    The principle that you cannot have a properly functioning market without free movement of goods, capital and labor is seriously crippled by rent control. Many of San Francisco’s socio-economic problems can be traced to the myopic “we are an island” views of the political classes in refusing to view SF as just a small piece of the region around it and to a form of rent control that hinders the mobility of labor.

  41. Posted by AMinSF

    BREAKING NEWS to MedusaSF:
    condos and SFH are not under rent control. i.e. once a lease expires you can raise the rent whatever you wish.
    so rent your condos out and make a buck…rents went way up in the last 2 years….woohoo!

  42. Posted by Fishchum

    I often wonder who comes out ahead because of RC. My wife and I are in the same apartment she’s had for 14 years in the Marina and we are stuck because of it. There have been times we’ve been tempted to move out for something bigger, be it via renting or buying. But every time we run the numbers, we still come out ahead because of RC. Maybe we would have done things differently and moved because the rent became too much. Who knows.

  43. Posted by anon

    view lover said: “market rates are up, not rents under rent control.”
    You have proved the point of the “econ 101″ crowd you have been disparaging. Market rates are up because of rent control, which artificially restricts supply. I.e. rent control causes rents to go up.

  44. Posted by paco

    “Once again – the free market theorists are trotting out their discredited pseudo-theories again. Their latest line of horsesh*t is “removing rent control will decrease rents”. Right.”
    sf apt.assoc surveyed its members and found 18,000 units that were voluntarily left vacant by small landlords who did not want to deal with the strictures imposed by rent control. they would
    presumably feel different if they knew they could remove tenants with 30-60 day notice.
    again, supply and demand are not pseudo-theories.

  45. Posted by resp

    paco – any way to get that data from teh SFAA? thx. I know they missed a few too.

  46. Posted by sparky

    viewlover,
    I called my Dad at his Ohio breakfast table, we discussed the economics of the SF properties he bought with his paid off home equity and how it has paid for his future retirement. He has his money in single family homes and not units because of rent control, is that “opposing speculation”

  47. Posted by paco

    resp,
    altho i’m a member of sfaa i was unable to unearth that link so far. i’ll keep searching.

  48. Posted by view lover

    anon, rent control is not the only thing that restricts supply but rather the process by which supply itself comes to the market. I’m not an advocate of rent control per sey, but singling it out as a restrictor of supply while the planning department and supervisors, who in my opinion, are more culpable are not being addressed, is unacceptable. Kicking people out of their rental units so that others with more money can take their place is not the first move to correct the problem, hence my continued reference to the process around Trinity Towers. Why have many of you failed to see this point in my other postings, that is what the whole thrust of my position is based on? Talk about free markets and focusing only on RC with all other sorts of regulation is not very smart.
    Landlords that keep their units off the market can say what they want. However, they are off the market because they can afford to keep them off. If they had to, they would rent them out. Just like the other landlord who does not want to deal with tenants. These vacant units can come to the market at market rates, but the landords apparently don’t need the money, unlike me, I need to have my tenants. So good for them.
    Sparky, that’s good for your dad, and you’ll probably inherit his holding. Since he has avoided the issues with rent control, you may as well, albeit by his smarts and not yours. In the context of my posting, it was sort of a rhetorical statement, but I’m trying to understand how your comment fits into the discussion. For one, he is retired and wealthy. That’s not the “breakfast” table I was referring to, sorry for confusing you, but rather the person impacted by one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Would you feel better if I said the breakfast table in Detroit, or do you have a rich relatives there also?

  49. Posted by sparky

    Viewlover,
    I gave one actual example to something you completely fabricated to make a point. Now you are telling me about my father. He will be happy to hear that he has retired! But really I want to hear more about my lack of “smarts”. Please tell me more

  50. Posted by view lover

    Yeah, I fabricated that Ohio is doing poorly, I’m sure it’s doing great by some standards. After all, for Republicans the toll on our nation is nothing but a fabrication by liberals.
    Besides, you brought your retired father in Ohio and his real estate holding in San Francisco to to make a rather far rebutal to begin with, or don’t you remember? Or was just that to broadcast to the world how rich you will be someday, or perhaps already are?

  51. Posted by sparky

    I said future retirement. And the real estate holdings I mentioned are in regards to the thread, and what properties make sense for small time investors to invest in. I wasn’t boasting or anything like that. But by what you have to say to me, I guess you think anyone who owns anything and comments here is broadcasting there wealth.

  52. Posted by viewlover

    It’s pretty disengenious to say you only meant to make a point that singe family homes are a better investment due to rent controls. You also guess wrong, I don’t think that at all.

  53. Posted by fluj

    “It’s pretty disengenious to say you only meant to make a point that singe family homes are a better investment due to rent controls. You also guess wrong, I don’t think that at all. ”
    For smaller investors? I think that point stands. Hey, sure, large multi units are a GREAT investment due to rent controls. They are also monopolized by two or three corporations and about five older SF families.

  54. Posted by sparky

    viewlover,
    Again I am speaking about real people. And it’s true that single family homes make more sense based on rent control.

  55. Posted by view lover

    I don’t disagree that sfh are less subject to rent control and consequently would make a better investment. But I don’t see how that argument in itself justifies removing rent control.
    My contention is the sarcasm about Ohio and reference to my supposed fabrications, which to me, clouded what turns out to be a remarkably benign observation.
    And yes, I understand that being a small landlord can be tough, and it has not been a good proposition for some time. Those that enter into that realm go in with their eyes wide open, or should. But how much of the barrier is due the to asking price of these buildings?
    I looked at a 3 unit building in Noe Valley a couple of couple years ago, but given the price point, even market rates would not create positive cash flow. The only selling point the agent could make was “future appreciation”. In that particular situation, rent-control was not a factor, but rather the greed of the seller. And besides, the place was a dump, and could not believe that some of these units were getting $3,300 a month.
    And to those small landlords that have their hands tied, I sympathize by not supporting the elimination of prop 13. At the same time, I do not support a solution that kicks people out of their rental units. Just a different perspective that apparently is shared with many other people who oppose getting rid of rent control. We’re not all losers and parasites, but some of us actually are concerned about the human toll and keeping this City diverse. Most posters here can do the math, we just all have a different perspective, that also does not make us fabricators or delusional. That’s all.

  56. Posted by sparky

    I full agree on the cost of units vs. what they rent for. It is way out of line. Especially with rent control keeping them at what they are getting in rent.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *