Submitted by HRJafael t3_10sfbo2 in massachusetts
Comments
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_j71qqio wrote
Unfortunately we're traveling down the more likely option 5) Do nothing, price out the middle and lower class and then watch as the region depresses in 10 to 15 years
CertifiedBlackGuy t1_j724p22 wrote
Thank God for capitalism <3
charons-voyage t1_j72bghx wrote
Are there actually rural communities in MA without internet? TIL wow
tashablue t1_j72o3co wrote
Many of the hill towns in Pioneer Valley don't have cell service, let alone internet that isn't satellite.
[deleted] t1_j72t86q wrote
[deleted]
witteefool t1_j74x329 wrote
I believe Biden just did it again last year. They won’t take the football out from under us again, right?
BovaDesnuts t1_j78ld2w wrote
The last house in Massachusetts to have running water got it in the 1970s.
[deleted] t1_j71m7qa wrote
[deleted]
New_Analyst3510 t1_j72hg7p wrote
Why do we need to build up internet in rural communities I would rather not
Icy-Neck-2422 t1_j71d20s wrote
SouthShoreSerenade t1_j71dggq wrote
For one reason and one reason only.
>The new policy created a powerful incentive for landlords either to convert rental units into condominiums or to demolish old buildings and build new ones.
Let's just eat the landlords. Problem solved.
gitbse t1_j71pwf1 wrote
When the capital owners hold all of the power, issues for the people will never be solved.
BovaDesnuts t1_j78lfuj wrote
Didn't work so well for the Irish
relliott22 t1_j71mxrx wrote
Came here to remind people that high rents are driven by basic supply and demand. Too many people are chasing too few rental properties. Rent control ultimately makes this problem worse by artificially decreasing the price of rental units, therefore artificially decreasing the quantity supplied.
I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Elizabeth Warren in the primaries, but when it comes to rent in Massachusetts, we should take a page from the Republicans and deregulate. If you really want the government involved in this, create government subsidies/tax breaks for the construction of the types of housing that you'd like to see built.
3720-To-One t1_j71vkz3 wrote
Whatwe need is for the state to take over zoning and tell NIMBYs and all their cries of “neighborhood character” to go pound sand.
Zoning is the problem. There isn’t enough supply to meet demand.
relliott22 t1_j71zhk9 wrote
To add on to that, in many places the historical buildings have got to go. Especially in the Boston metro.
Also, we need to stop large universities like Harvard, MIT, Northeastern, and Boston University (my alma mater) from buying any more land. They're like tumors.
3720-To-One t1_j720wb1 wrote
My issue is what’s considered historical.
A building isn’t “historical” and worthy of presets to on simply because it’s old.
But yes, universities need to stop buying land, and there needs to be more pressure for them to build more housing to house their students.
When I was in my 20s and living in Allston, it’s frustrating that I’m having to compete with so many BU students with rich parents, which ultimately drives up prices.
torniz t1_j73amqn wrote
Fall River has knocked down a bunch of old churches. Instead of building multi unit houses, we got single family homes.
relliott22 t1_j73c3oq wrote
The perfect is the enemy of the good. You got more housing.
HaElfParagon t1_j7231jm wrote
Well, deregulate in some instances. I don't want landlords to have the ability to force tenants out just to hike rent 30% for the next person
relliott22 t1_j72fyg1 wrote
...And neither do I. But landlords do need to be able to evict people, and they do need to get a fair market return for their properties.
The regulations that I would like to see gone are the regulations that make it harder to build, but I don't pretend to be an expert on housing policy. I just know that the current problem is one of inadequate supply, and that rent control would exacerbate the problem.
We want the same things. It's just about what we think is the right road to get there.
han7nah t1_j72xkvh wrote
The increase isn't tied to any fair market return, their monthly mortgage is the same every month. The increase in rent is always way more than the increase in the costs of property taxes, maintenance, and insurance.
HaElfParagon t1_j72xmbs wrote
I disagree. I don't think "fair market return" is something that should be allowed when we have a homeless epidemic
Bobbydadude01 t1_j71w4dy wrote
Empirical evidence disagrees but pop off king.
Cerberus73 t1_j71xrvi wrote
Make a blanket declaratory statement without backing it up? Pop off, king.
Bobbydadude01 t1_j71xyai wrote
Read a book
Bendragonpants t1_j72bi95 wrote
Which one? (Might I suggest The Power of Productivity by William Lewis?)
Bobbydadude01 t1_j72cf9n wrote
I read a few papers about it. The big one was a look at San Francisco's rent control. It was titled "The effects of rent control expansion on tenants landlords and inequality.
I'll check it out at some point.
Bendragonpants t1_j72cjzn wrote
Who’s the author? I’ll check it out
Bobbydadude01 t1_j72ct4g wrote
Rebecca Diamond
Tim McQuade
Franklin Qian
relliott22 t1_j72mgw0 wrote
>The effects of rent control expansion on tenants landlords and inequality.
From the abstract of that article:
"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."
Bobbydadude01 t1_j72mu8o wrote
Don't just read the abstract.
Reducing displacement of current renters in the goal of rent control. That's the primary objective. It is not a fix all soluton to housing costs.
relliott22 t1_j72o3zj wrote
The paper you cited saying rent control works actually says that rent control is counterproductive. The goal of rent control is to reduce rents, says so right in the name. Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well.
Bobbydadude01 t1_j72q5zm wrote
No, the purpose of rent control is to stop rents from shooting up for current residents. Says so right in the same. Fortunate, it works very we.
relliott22 t1_j72r586 wrote
That's not what the paper you cited says.
Bobbydadude01 t1_j72rmp8 wrote
Yes it clearly does. Even in the abstract, which is evidently the only thing you read when doing research.
relliott22 t1_j72sw2u wrote
My Dude, please take your own advice:
"We find that landlords actively respond to the imposition of rent control by converting their properties to condos and TICs or by redeveloping the building in such as a way as to exempt it from the regulations. In sum, we find that impacted landlords reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15 percent. Further, we find that there was a 25 percent decline in the number of renters living in units protected by rent control, as many buildings were converted to new construction or condos that are exempt from rent control.
"This reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run, leading to a transfer between future San Francisco renters and renters living in San Francisco in 1994. In addition, the conversion of existing rental properties to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing ultimately led to a housing stock increasingly directed toward higher income individuals. In this way, rent control contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, contrary to the stated policy goal. Rent control appears to have increased income inequality in the city by both limiting displacement of minorities and attracting higher income residents."
Bobbydadude01 t1_j72tvge wrote
As I have stated, this reduces rent volatility for current residents but leads to increased rents in the future for new tenants.
New housing units reduces housing costs.
Learn how to read a paper.
relliott22 t1_j731ohj wrote
It exacerbates the problem in the long term which makes it a poor policy choice. We should subsidize housing construction rather than imposing rent controls. Learn to draw conclusions based on what you've read.
Bobbydadude01 t1_j733nyf wrote
It's proper usage is a short-term solution while long solutions are implemented or during economic emergencies.
Implementing rent control while increase unit construction would reduce housing costs in the short term while ensuring increased supply in the long term to counteract the supply affects of rent control.
relliott22 t1_j734jmm wrote
Which is not what the proposed bill would do. The bill would give cities and towns the ability to impose rent controls. Not temporary emergency rent controls while they also increased supply. Just rent controls. Now, are you for or against the proposed bill? Because I'm against it.
Bobbydadude01 t1_j735nmt wrote
And that has nothing to do with what I said. I have spoken about the concept of rent control, not specific policy.
But you should be able to figure out my opinion.
fattoush_republic t1_j71wzgg wrote
Will not ever pass the State House
Would not be signed by Maura Healey
The bill's sponsors just want political points for being progressive
Chippopotanuse t1_j72y2kz wrote
As a progressive - fuck these clowns.
Build more housing and tell the suburban nimbys to shut the hell up. Ease up on suburban zoning that requires an acre and 120’ of frontage for a SINGLE home dwelling. Allow more dense multifamily constructing.
Rent control really doesn’t do shit to help folks overall.
It locks people into current living situation. It makes the housing market less liquid and doesn’t create any new beds for all the folks who want housing.
Splime t1_j71zz47 wrote
So apparently this is an unpopular opinion, but here it goes: We need some form of rent control, but by itself rent control will not do anything to help the housing crisis. Rent control makes sure that people don't get evicted from their homes just because a landlord decides they want to charge way more. It gives stability to people who rent, something which I don't think you can undersell.
Having said that, it's a bandaid. It addresses a symptom of the problem. It does absolutely nothing to address the main cause of the housing crisis, basic supply and demand. We need more housing, and while I think the best route is public mixed-income developments, at this point literally anything is better than the status quo. Rich NIMBYs are the real problem, don't lose sight of that.
3720-To-One t1_j721w6w wrote
The state needs to take zoning authority away from local municipalities.
Each individual town has zero incentive to allow more housing when they can just say “no, not here. Need to preserve our neighborhood character! Build somewhere else.”
Basically “I got mine, so fuck everybody else, not my problem.”
Splime t1_j723csa wrote
Seriously - the MBTA Communities Act is a start, but it's still ultimately up to individual towns, which is not exactly confidence-inspiring
witteefool t1_j74xb5a wrote
That’s what CA just did. I have faith it will prove useful soon enough.
charons-voyage t1_j72btng wrote
While it ensures people don’t get evicted due to LL raising costs too much, it also ensures those people will NEVER give up their rent controlled place. Look at what happened in NYC with people passing on their apartments to their heirs for generations. What we really need is rent stabilization (allowing LL to only raise rent by X% per year, not allowing heirs to inherit the deal, etc).
relliott22 t1_j72h8cc wrote
Rent control rigs the game in a way that creates a series of perverse incentives. If you imagine renting like a game of musical chairs, rent control stops the music. Permanently. It artificially divides renters into winners and losers. The winners are the people who manage to land a rent controlled apartment when the music stops. The losers are everyone else.
Now the losers are really stuck. It becomes incredibly hard to find a rent controlled apartment. The prices for everything that's left go up even more, and the incentive to build new housing plummets. Why would you build high density housing if the big bad government is going to come in and tell you what you can charge?
Even the winners are hurt, because they can't move. The rent controlled apartment they've managed to land becomes a trap. If they move, they're going to join the losers in their desperate struggle to find a rent controlled apartment. So they stay in the same apartment long after it becomes the right place for them to live.
I do agree that the housing market in Boston in particular and Massachusetts in general is in bad straits. But rent control will only solve the problem for a fraction of the populace. And even then it will come with real downsides. The rest of the populace will suffer even more.
Splime t1_j72oii1 wrote
I mean you're not wrong - if rent control/stabilization only applies to some rentals, and you don't adequately expand housing alongside it, you're just shifting the impact. I think it mostly makes sense as an emergency measure - stop people from getting kicked out first, then actually fix things.
Really though, what this boils down to is that a basic human need (shelter) is tied up in a market - a market which is never going to cover everyone's needs if left to its own devices. At the very least, rent control is a blunt instrument to help protect some of the most vulnerable (IMO), but it's a bandaid on a broken system to begin with. Rent control creates perverse incentives because the whole housing market is already full of perverse incentives. But ultimately, I don't think anyone should be allowed to jack up rents to such an extent that it puts people on the streets. And if putting such a minor piece of basic decency into law breaks the housing market, then we have way bigger problems.
relliott22 t1_j72q96m wrote
Or you're just misunderstanding the nature of the problem. High prices aren't the problem. High prices are a symptom of insufficient supply, which is the real problem. If you want to leverage government policy to fix the problem, attack the insufficient supply instead of attacking the high price. If you create subsidies or tax breaks for people building the type of housing you want to see built (in Boston that would be high density, small and medium sized apartments), this will alleviate the problem of high prices.
If there is an emergency (such as a 50-100% surge in rents due to a global pandemic), then price controls can be used as an emergency measure, so long as they are explicitly stated as emergency measures and capped by an appropriate time limit. If you don't do that you risk spooking builders and exacerbating the supply problem.
Price controls aren't a minor piece of basic decency, price controls are drastic market interventions. The whole point of a market is price discovery. What is the proper price for a 1 bedroom apartment in Boston? You don't know the answer to that. Neither do I. Neither does anyone in this thread or in the government or in the whole wide world. The only way to arrive at the correct answer to that question is to establish a free and fair market and let the market discover the price. That is the essential function of every market for every good, and we judge how well a market is functioning by how efficiently it arrives at that equilibrium price. A price control destroys this utterly. So that's why a price control would break the market, because that's what price controls do. It is not somehow the market's fault.
Splime t1_j72yt7s wrote
I mean, I thought I was pretty clear above that insufficient supply is the much larger problem, but if you want to claim I'm "misunderstanding" then go ahead I guess.
The thing is, high prices may not be "the problem", but they are very much a huge problem in and of themselves. I would go as far as to say that yes, these prices combined with a lack of supply are in fact an emergency. High prices for housing are highly correlated with homelessness, and a free market will never find a profitable way to supply decent housing to the homeless. Even if sufficient construction brings prices down for most people, they're still getting left behind.
Like, it's great that you went into that whole explanation about how markets work, but you're totally missing the bigger picture here. The problem is that a fundamental human need like housing should not be subject to the whims of the market. Housing is not, and can never be, a truly free market, for several reasons:
- Housing values incentivize NIMBYism: supply shortages increase prices, which encourage people to put in market controls that further restrict supply and increase value
- The cost of moving is significant, and gives landlords leverage that tenants will never have. It's not just financial impacts, moving can also disrupt children's education, and generally disrupt the feeling of stability and "home".
- You can't just not buy housing. There are plenty of goods that you can just not buy if they're too expensive. Housing is not one of them.
- The net result is landlords have so much more power than tenants, which hardly makes it a balanced market to begin with.
I think that markets are a very useful tool that can actually build a lot of housing if we get rid of some of the blockers. But they're not some sort of fundamental law of the universe that cannot be interfered with. And if they're so fragile that even some sort of barely adequate 10% rent increase cap, for instance, will "utterly destroy" them, then maybe there's a bigger problem here.
relliott22 t1_j7333xf wrote
I'm not arguing for the status quo, or for no government intervention. I think that we should use government policy to subsidize construction. What you seem to be advocating for is socialized housing, which tends to be inefficient. It's hard for central planners to know where to build the right amounts of the right types of housing. Markets allocate these resources much more efficiently. That's why even social democracies in Western Europe still have private housing markets.
I'm trying to get you to understand that imposing price controls exacerbates the problem in the long run by making the supply problem worse. No one wants to supply the demand for rent controlled apartments, so new rent controlled apartments don't get built and existing rent controlled apartments get converted into condos which further decreases supply and makes the problem worse.
Your heart is in the right place, but the solution you're advocating for doesn't work. We see this both in economic theory (if you artificially decrease the price of a good you will artificially decrease the quantity supplied, basic econ 101), and in empirical evidence when we examine places where rent control has been tried.
Splime t1_j73fru1 wrote
Ok, sounds like we're closer in thinking than I thought then. I think you're underselling socialized housing somewhat - it's definitely less efficient at a smaller scale, but if you need a lot of housing in bulk then that central planning becomes a benefit. I think some combination of both (such as in Austria) could work, but no fully market-based solution is going to cover everyone.
I guess the thing is, I know price controls can make the supply situation worse. I think the impact is overblown - there's still going to be developers who can turn a profit if the controls aren't too onerous, but there is a negative impact. In my opinion though, it's a worthwhile sacrifice in the short term to avoid evictions and displacement.
There's got to be some sort of compromise here, IMO - like, that's why I mentioned 10% (very arbitrarily), it's still above inflation usually, still allows for developer profit, but doesn't allow for insane price hikes all in one go. With enough supply, that kind of rent control would be de facto pointless anyway. The places where rent control failed are usually because they never bothered to actually fix the supply constraints. Maybe artificially lowering the price a little didn't help the supply, but single family zoning and long arbitrary approval processes for multi family housing are a much more significant artificial limit to supply. I don't think it's all or nothing - there's a certain amount of rent control you can get away with if you remove enough supply restrictions, there's got to be some sort of balancing act possible here.
I guess what I'm saying is, the whole concept of rent control shouldn't be written off just because people expect it to "solve housing". It's an often misused tool with some drawbacks, and there are better ways of providing housing stability (such as social housing), but when done properly it can be a net positive. Or put more succinctly, rent control of a private market is probably the worst way to reduce evictions and sudden rent hikes, but it is a way of doing that. And apparently that's the best we can expect from our politicians :/
relliott22 t1_j73lzrq wrote
Yeah, that's not a ringing endorsement of the policy. And the bill in question simply lets towns and cities impose rent controls at their own discretion. I cannot in good conscience support that bill. It's a bad idea that will make the housing problem in Massachusetts worse with no guarantee that it will have any positive impacts.
3720-To-One t1_j71vwai wrote
Jesus Christ, we don’t need rent control.
We need the state to take over zoning and to tell all the NIMBYs to pound sand.
Rents are soaring because there isn’t enough supply housing or housing to meet demand.
Rent control just picks winners and losers, and screws over people who don’t already have their foot in the door, and just further disincentivizes new construction.
It’s a terrible idea.
[deleted] t1_j72tmcq wrote
[deleted]
Interesting-Field-45 t1_j71r9me wrote
Ban LLCs from owning property. Make landlords fully liable and traceable to the properties they own. Edit to add- short term rentals are also a problem.
charons-voyage t1_j72c66l wrote
I mean small-time LLs can form an LLC to purchase their properties to protect themselves financially. For example, if I inherit my mom’s house, I’ll probably form an LLC to be the “owner” of the property and rent it out.
Interesting-Field-45 t1_j72gesw wrote
I don’t think you should be able to do that legally. Just my opinion.
AReluctantEssayist t1_j71qr4s wrote
There are exactly two things all economists agree on: free trade is good and rent control is the surest way to destroy a city short of carpet bombing it.
fendent t1_j71xk4x wrote
No, all economists don’t agree on those things.
AReluctantEssayist t1_j71ylb9 wrote
What a well-thought out, eloquent, stinging rebuke.
fendent t1_j71z3y0 wrote
“all economists believe free trade is good” is so ridiculous on its face, I figured you must have mistyped. you know that economists exist across an entire spectrum of opinions on this right?
AReluctantEssayist t1_j7205vd wrote
So do scientists but you won't find one who believes global warming isn't real, because there simply isn't evidence that supports that conclusion.
fendent t1_j7268ea wrote
Funny you should say that considering NAFTA and other FTAs have all been horrible for the environment. They give corporations an escape hatch for environmental regulations and fairly shortsighted processes for striking down environmentally-minded rules and regs, sinking us all to the lowest common denominator with little ability to raise and enforce them again.
AReluctantEssayist t1_j726iat wrote
I see a distinct failure to address my actual point.
fendent t1_j72714z wrote
Well considering you made two points and I’m addressing one directly, I think I’m good. You present two dramatic points without a shred of evidence then ask other people to refute that in a concise and verbose manner and when one does, you say no no not that—my real point. Have a good one, bud.
AReluctantEssayist t1_j727mad wrote
You did not refute anything I said. You bluntly refused to address my actual points while ranting about free trade's effect on the environment because I likened the consensus of economists to that of scientists.
fendent t1_j728uyo wrote
Yeah, if you prop up your argument with absolutely nothing but a faulty, unsubstantiated premise, it’s going to be treated as it is: an opinion being stated as fact. Funny that.
AReluctantEssayist t1_j72964m wrote
So, did you address my point, or did you refuse to because it's unsubstantiated nonsense? How can the essential premise of what you're saying change so drastically in under fifteen minutes?
DumbshitOnTheRight t1_j724a5d wrote
You made the "factual declaration" - how about some evidence?
JB4-3 t1_j71q4go wrote
This is the worst kind of legislation. A proven bad idea that LOOKS like you’re helping an important issue but actually makes it worse. Some reasons are mentioned above but I’d add: no incentive for older people to downsize so you end up with 2 people in a 3 bedroom, etc.
fendent t1_j71xcli wrote
Not that I’m arguing for or against rent control, but this is already happening without it
D2Foley t1_j71z8h7 wrote
Terrible news, people voted to remove it for a reason.
vitico1 t1_j71n9fu wrote
Hahahaha now rent will start at $4,000 a month for a one bedroom. With an automatic 3% increase. I've seen this before.
[deleted] t1_j71x3ig wrote
Doing everything except allowing significant new housing to be built.
As a resident of neighboring NIMBY Rhode Island, I feel your pain. Our local governments seem determined to send as many young and middle income people as possible out of state to places like Georgia and North Carolina.
shockandawesome0 t1_j72i0zv wrote
Lot of neoliberal YIMBYs suggesting that the solution to the problem of high rents caused by price gouging developer-landlords is...to give developer-landlords even more power. Right.
No matter how much you deregulate, the landlords are never going to build themselves out of a profit. It's literally just repackaging trickle-down economics, and like Reagan, it ignores (or rather, gleefully embraces) the fact that the landlord class is out to maximize their profits, not solve a social problem. If that means sitting on empty lots, that's exactly what they'll do (and have done).
The correct thing to do here is to massively expand the NON-MARKET housing stock. State owned, tenant owned, nonprofit owned, as long as it's non-market. It's the only way to guarantee that enough housing will be built, and that it won't price out working people. (It also forces the competition that the YIMBYs just assume exists in a vacuum.) Vienna is an excellent example of this in practice; two thirds of the city's housing stock is non-market and it's one of the most affordable cities in Europe (especially if we account for like, whether you'd actually want to live there; we're not counting Pripyat here).
keegan1015 t1_j71l21e wrote
HARD NO! I remember Boston under rent control.
Visible-Education-98 t1_j71n7xo wrote
What do you remember about it?
keegan1015 t1_j71qr58 wrote
Blocks of boarded up buildings, people walking away from their homes, rather than deal with the city politics no investment in the community neighbors leaving apartments, vacant, (which is what I did when I bought my first house) and that’s just for starters you really had to be there/grow up with it to understand
Visible-Education-98 t1_j72i8ns wrote
I think you might be confusing the phenomenon of White flight during the 70s/80s in Boston. That can be attributed more to forced busing than rent control. I know, I lived through it.
keegan1015 t1_j72nxvp wrote
Not confusing anything the term “white flight” people moving out of Boston for towns with better schools was limited in scope, and only affected a few streets/areas if you lived through this you would know that.
Visible-Education-98 t1_j738g8p wrote
It affected the whole city….every neighborhood, by law, was desegregated. Rent control on the other hand was limited in scope once the federal government implemented Section 8 housing.
Rent control was applied to certain properties. So, no matter your income if you were in a rent controlled apartment your rent didn’t increase. Many people got WEALTHY while living in rent controlled apartments, which was the real reason they got rid of it. People making really good money were in those properties and the people who were the targeted beneficiaries of the program got the shaft and ended up in public housing.
keegan1015 t1_j73jyh9 wrote
The only statement that you made that is true is that desegregation was citywide
Visible-Education-98 t1_j746sh2 wrote
Ya, because you KNOW everything. Too bad, rent control will be a reality in 2 months! Cannot wait.
mattgm1995 t1_j722n16 wrote
Can we loosen restrictions and the timelines for approvals on new construction instead?
saintmusty t1_j73cgyr wrote
fwiw all this bill would do is repeal the prohibition on enabling the option for rent control at the local level
scwelch t1_j73fcew wrote
Why not build more asap
[deleted] t1_j71tzgy wrote
[deleted]
JPenniman t1_j7263if wrote
They should also have a bill similar to NY where 3% growth in units over 3 years or builders remedy.
Bunkerbuster12 t1_j747v1m wrote
Maybe the towns should stop raising real estate taxes
TheTr7nity t1_j75mzbr wrote
I blind man can see rent control is a terrible idea.
RebelKyle t1_j72e2nl wrote
HELL YEAH RENT CONTROL STATEWIDE!!!!
lucidguppy t1_j71g6z6 wrote
We need to do several tasks.
Build city/town infrastructure.
Loosen regulations on building up. Build multistory units that can easily be joined together when the population starts to drop in 10-20 years.
Build up internet in rural communities.
Push more municipal power company formation - lower power costs.