What would it take to mitigate the downside of rent control, specifically the skimping on maintenance?

Submitted by letoatreides_ t3_11a7zf1 in boston

I used to think that rent control only worsens affordability for those who don't already live in rent controlled units, plus the skimping on maintenance by landlords for units locked into controlled rents. But now I'm very skeptical of the affordability argument.

Rent prices are driven exclusively by the balance of supply vs. demand in a given market. A landlord would even be highly incentivized to rent at a loss, compared to the alternative of taking a far larger loss by leaving a unit vacant if they charged above the market price.

Which then leaves the skimping on maintenance problem. What if tenants were allowed to partially withhold rent if the landlord skimps too much on maintenance? Or if that leads to too many disputes, maybe the withholding is only allowed after an official city inspection finds that too much maintenance was deferred.

Also, could a landlord simply decline to renew the lease next year, and rent the unit to new tenants at any price? And finally, why carve out an exemption for small-time landlords? I get maybe if they only own a single unit, but anything above that...

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jojenns t1_j9qgh58 wrote

A rewrite of the state sanitary code is the maintenance answer. There are updates coming already but they’d have to get more in the weeds with it

9

NoMoLerking t1_j9qh418 wrote

The city just needs to purchase and maintain buildings at below market rent.

5

Dent7777 t1_j9qnqtb wrote

Maybe hiring more of the people who inspect and enforce the state sanitary code, so that potential violations are swiftly checked and vigorously enforced.

1

Anustart15 t1_j9qoiqr wrote

Making the rent control limit 10% so it's not really restrictive enough to keep a landlord from renting a place at the same price they would have before rent control in 95% of situations.

0

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j9qvfc9 wrote

Replying to NoMoLerking (#1,947,577)

And it's gotta be new housing, not just buying shit that's there. If the city took over responsibility for a a thousand units of housing, that'd be great for people living in those units but it wouldn't do shit for anyone else. If anything, it'd make it worse because supply wouldn't turn over.

This is still, at its core, a supply and demand problem. Demand has steadily outpaced supply for decades in every market experiencing these issues. Any solution that isn't going to address the lack of supply is not a solution.

Rent stabilization and control are the dressing, nice to have, but ultimately fucking useless without having a salad (more housing)

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j9qvvn7 wrote

Replying to Anustart15 (#1,948,543)

If any apartment is $1000 and they can only go up to $1100 with the same tenant but they know they could charge $1500 to a new tenant, the landlord is just going to not renew the lease and list at the new price. Even with the broker fees, paying for cleanup, and losing between 2-4 weeks worth of rent each year, it's still worth it financially as long as the market will bear a higher price.

The answer is to fix the market first. Anything that isn't doing that is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic

9

Anustart15 t1_j9qzlre wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#1,949,556)

No apartment within 2 hours of Boston is $1000. Let's go with a realistic low number and say it's a $2000 a month apartment. If they managed to price it right when they first start renting it out, it's not going to be jumping up more than $200 in a year. If they want to renovate there's only so much they can do in a single year with a tenant actively living in there that will justify more than $200 increase a year also.

−5

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j9r28xc wrote

Replying to Anustart15 (#1,950,072)

If it's $2000 that can only go up to $2200 but there's enough demand where that same place can be listed for $2600, a landlord can and will do that. Even if they're losing a full month's rent to re-list it (most likely, they'd just shift the next tenant to a mid month lease), that increase would pay itself off within a few months.

It's a market problem. Any solution not focused on the root problem of supply is going to be inadequate and ineffective.

7

Anustart15 t1_j9ra8ni wrote

Replying to Proof-Variation7005 (#1,950,385)

Sure. And if they are renting a place for $5 and it's suddenly worth $5 million, the landlord will do that, but how often is a landlord accidentally under pricing their rental by $600? It's not like units are jumping 30% year over year. If a landlord is willing to kick someone out to charge higher rent, they were already boosting the rent as much as they could get away with each year, so they aren't going to need to do those huge jumps in the first place

1

iliketuurtles t1_j9um7lz wrote

The poor owners wouldn't be able pay off their 2nd home with the profits from their 1st! God forbid.

3

SpiritedCamel_ t1_j9utrws wrote

> Rent prices are driven exclusively by the balance of supply vs. demand in a given market.

This isn't fully accurate. Yes, the supply relative to demand is a major driver. Average incomes and income distributions also impact prices.

In Boston, we have low supply relative to demand AND high average incomes AND high dispersion of incomes.

This results in landlords being able to price available apartments at high prices because the pool of potential renters: a) don't have a large supply to choose from, and b) some in the renter pool have very high incomes and are willing to pay a lot because of the low supply.

1

Due-Studio-65 t1_j9v2zf0 wrote

3x damages for any failures of the landlord to keep up with maintenance.

1

letoatreides_ OP t1_j9zautb wrote

Replying to SpiritedCamel_ (#1,971,688)

That is a good point, "demand" is never really just the # of potential "buyers", but also each buyers willingness to pay, which is of course highly influenced by their ability to pay. Once there's a shortage of anything, assuming prices are allowed to freely fluctuate, those with the most $$ are first in line. But that's capitalism for ya.

At least the government has a separate pool of income restricted housing units, where the selection is based not on wealth, but on (household size/dependents? seniority on the waitlist? being a lottery also...luck?)

1