Millionaires eyeing Potrero Hill

11.29.11 - 2:52 pm | Tim Redmond |

(60)

I hate to harp on this (well, no I don't) but when people tell me that we don't have to worry so much about gentrification these days, that we're living in a different world than the days of the dot-com boom, I have to wonder: Am I the only one reading the business pages?

Because in the real world of San Francisco business, the real-estate boom is on and housing prices -- particularly in the southeast part of the city -- are about to start soaring again.

In fact, according to the Chron, the market is already flying high -- and dealing with the influx of new wealth and the continuing change in the demographics of the city will be very much a serious issue for Mayor Lee over the next year:

ZipRealty just completed a study on the millennial home buyer, pointing out that this generation, born after 1982, is the largest in American history, larger even than the Baby Boomer generation. To these buyers, walkability and a vibrant urban community are huge draws in a home purchase. The ZipRealty study seems confirmed by this recent mini-boom in neighborhoods close to SoMa’s flourishing tech industry: newly minted millionaires in their 20s and 30s have the buying power to drive prices up.

Want proof? We’ve got it. The median price of a single-family home in San Francisco County was $745,000 in October, up $10K from October of 2010. In the neighborhoods in question though, the increase is more striking. In Noe Valley this October, the average price-per-square-foot was up 5% from last year for the third month in a row; in SoMa, up 11%; in eastern Potrero Hill, up 16%.

So: When Zynga goes public in a few months, a whole lot of young millionaires will want to buy houses in Potrero Hill. Dogpatch, and the southern end of SOMA. Oh, and the Mission. Rents will go way up. Housing prices will go even further beyond the level that ordinary, non-millionaire working people can afford.

I'm happy for all the Zyngites, and I'm glad the company is here in SF and generating economic activity. But one of the lessons of the dot-com boom is that the city, as a matter of policy, has to protect existing neighborhoods and residents (and existing industrial blue-collar businesses and jobs) from displacement. Otherwise the horrors of the late 1990s will start creeping back.

Comments

Rent control already distorts the market

and privileges one section of society (usually older renters) over another. The last thing we need is the government doing the same thing in relation to the ability of people to buy and sell property for what they wish.

One thing I've never understood about the progressive emphasis on "gentrification" is that many property owners are happy to sell at inflated prices - and then move somewhere else either in SF or outside the city. Many property owners have waited for just the right confluence of supply and demand to sell, make a bundle and move on. No one is forcing them to do so.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

"Rent control already distorts the market" posted by imposter

of Aragorn, and is bogus bullshit

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

Cities have imposed restrictions on who gets to live there

Cities around the world have used residency limits. Cities can hold only so many people at current zoning levels and there is often an unlimited demand of people from the countryside and smaller cities that want to live in the big cities where incomes are highest and jobs are most plentiful. Cities have used residency permits, which are issued after housing, job and/or exisitng family connections are satisfied, in order to try to provide some balance of population demand to limited housing resources.

At a minimum, a city like San Francisco that has limitless demand for housing should require that all new construction be sold only to full-time residents. Part-time residents, real estate speculators, and foreign investors create real and lasting damage to the local economy that shouldn't be tolerated by a so-called liberal city that San Francisco pretends to call itself.

As far as the rent control nonsense, ha, ha. We've heard this gibberish a hundred times before. Assuming rent controlled units are currently $500 a month under market, what good does it do the city economy if these tenants now have to pay $6,000 more in rent every year? Many landlords don't even live in the city so the rent leaves the local economy forever. Losing rent control protections, the tenants would have less money to spend on food, medical and education expenses in the local economy. So out-of-town landlords increase their wealth and tenants become poorer. And this is good for the local Main Street economy?

Until the Occupy protestors start demanding for the end of the private landlord industry altogether, and demanding the end of the multi-billion dollar tax welfare subsidies the federal and state govenments give to landlords and real estate speculators - economic growth and hopefulness will never - repeat never - improve.

Posted by Aragron on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 6:54 pm

What percentage of residential landlords are "out of towners?"

Do you know the answer to this?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

Why would it matter where a landlord lives?

Most landlrods would not want to live in the kind of hosuing suitable for tenants, for the simple reason that they can afford something much better.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 6:19 am

Is that a hunch?

Or do you have proof that "most landlords can afford something better?"

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

You want proof that those who own properties

have more net worth than those who rent from them?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

No, I want evidence to back up your statement.

Which was "most landlords can afford something better." You're saying that the owner of a 5-unit income property in SF, valued at say..... $3.5 million, lives in a property in excess of $3.5 million either in SF or elsewhere?

You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of property ownership if you believe that. Assuming one owns the type of building I just mentioned and collects rent at $3500 x5 units that means they take in $17,500 a month in rental income. Even if they own the building free and clear (which most landlords do not) they still have to pay property taxes, insurance and upkeep. Now reducing that rental gross income to $14,000 a month you're telling me that someone who owns a $3.5 million building can afford a $3.7 million property elsewhere? The loan payment on a property valued at $3.7 million with a down-payment of $700,000 is in excess of $19,000 a month The idea that our fictional landlord is living in baronial splendor on other people's income is complete and utter bullshit.

See - number don't lie. People do.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

So people who buy expensive buildings don't have

well-paid jobs and income or wealth outside their rental? How do you think they bought that rental in the first place?

See, unlike you, I actually own property.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

Exactly how is SF supposed to

Exactly how is SF supposed to protect neighborhoods when housing is ridiculously artificially constrained?
Do you propose you set up a lottery to only accept a certain number of new people that meet certain progressive criteria to set up homes in SF? (The salomon plan)
I really dont understand... People come to SF, you cant stop them. You can plan, and construct some amount of housing to offset their effect on SF - or you can do what we do: lock everything down. Construct some small amount of housing. Make it as difficult as possible to build new housing.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

Tim, this statement is patently false:

"dealing with the influx of new wealth and the continuing change in the demographics of the city will be very much a serious issue for Mayor Lee over the next year"

Why would an increase in RE transfer taxes, property taxes and local sales taxes be a problem for Lee?

Why would a demographic that favors him in the next election be a problem to him?

Truth is - it's not a problem for him at all. It's a problem for you.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 6:17 am

serious issue

It's a serious issue. He may decide he wants to duck it, or he may decide he likes the idea of doing what some downtown folks have been advocating (openly) for years -- seeking more wealthy conservatives to change the city's voting patterns. But it's still a big issue.

As for rent control distorting the market: Why is it wrong for someone who has lived in a community for 20 years, put down roots, contributed etc. to have the right to stay -- even if that's at the expense of a richer person who wants to move in?

Posted by tim on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 10:39 am

Rent Control is not the answer

Rent subsidies is a far more equitable answer.

I find it very frustrating reading the comments on SF Guardian as no one ever listens to an alternative views and the level of comments always degrades to name calling.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 10:59 am

Yes, Chris, subsidies that target only the poor make

much more sense than controlling the rents of hipsters who make 200K pa but hoard their rent-controlled unit in the Mission because it's "cool" to hang with poor people in an edgy neighborhood.

Section 8 works; rent control does not.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 11:45 am

I can't imagine there are

I can't imagine there are many 'hipsters making 200K..living in rent controlled apartments'. Someone with more understanding of the specifics please clarify, but my general understanding is that rent control only applies to units covered prior to 1979; the original 'master tenant/s' still have to be occupying and holding the lease; once all the original tenants have left the unit reverts to market rate. This means that most of those folks in rent controlled units have been living and working in their neighborhoods for over 30 years and are an integral part of the communities they have been creating, developing and sustaining since before most of the hipster arrivistas were born. Many of them are now seniors or struggling to survive as once middle class family units.
I would also like to thank all those who are continuing to publicize and promote the name of the protest group "ANONYMOUS", no such thing as bad publicity!!

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

The original tenant from 1979 doesn't need be present

If they are then rent is frozen at those levels except for allowable increases. When the original tenant leaves the new tenant can be charged rent at whatever the current market will bear - but that property is still rent-controlled, meaning the new tenant pays a higher rent but any subsequent increases are then indexed by the rent control board.

Remember that during the 1990s there were many new residents in SF who moved into units where the owner could adjust the rent and who still live there today, enjoying the benefits of rent control. A Cole Valley 3-bedroom flat rented for around $1700 in 1995 - that same flat would rent upwards of $4000 today. So rent control doesn't just benefit "elderly and middle class" people - it also benefits those who had the foresight or just good luck to rent in SF during a time when it was relatively inexpensive (compared to now).

It's easy to compare how rent control impacts neighborhoods in SF by looking at those dominated by single family homes, which aren't covered by rent control, vs. those dominated by apartments.

Posted by Autonomous on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

Thanks for clarification, but

Thanks for clarification, but just to be clear, the rent control ordinance and it's provisions still only apply to pre 1979 leases, however once 'original' tenant vacates the rent can be adjusted to whatever the owner can get. From that point forward the rent can only be increased annually in compliance with pre-existing rent control restrictions, as opposed to a post 1979 leases where rent can be increased without restriction for every new lease?. Or, once 'original' tenant leaves, there is no added 'protection' over what applies to units that have always been market rate?.
Pardon my density, rules and regulations frequently bamboozle me with their fine print and seeming contradictions.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

Yes

You summed it up well. It is confusing BTW - I think most people find it confusing. However in comparison to New York's rent control laws San Francisco's are a breeze to understand.

Once the original tenant leaves, the tenant covered by rent control, the unit can then be rented out at current rental rates. However the UNIT is still covered by rent control in as far as rent increases with a new tenant are limited to what the rent control board approves plus any increases for new bond measures etc...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

No, Monk, RC applies to any building built prior ot 1979

So, yes, if all tenants on a lease move out the LL can reset the rent on the new lease to market. But then RC applies all over again.

That's why so many rentals become owner-occupied. You can't make decent money off RC rentals in SF, which is why rentals are in such short supply, which is why rents are so high.

It's that simple.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

Thanks for feedback, think

Thanks for feedback, think it's sunk into this ossified old brain. I happen to be one of the 'lucky ones', I think there were probably three reasons my darling wife eventually gave in and consented to marry me, 1) I love to cook, 2) I was gainfully employed, and possibly the clincher, 3) I had a rent controlled apartment in Noe Valley, and to misquote Charlton Heston, "Out of my cold dead hands......".
Don't wanna get into a 'housing' issue here, but I imagine there are comparatively few units that are still 'frozen' at 1979 levels, most have subsequently been up-priced significantly by original or subsequent owners, who presumably knew the laws before they purchased. What this city desperately needs, and has for decades, is a commitment to building decent affordable housing in order to retain replace and attract a vibrant working/middle class and families who have always been the backbone and lifeblood of our town. The trickle down economy and a few crumbs that fall off 'the rich man's' can not build or sustain healthy communities. Just my 2c.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

Often times new owners offer "move out money"

to rent-controlled tenants to get them to give up their apartments and leave. This can be a considerable amount - I've heard of payments to protected tenants (usually elderly) in excess of $75,000. That seems like a lot but when you've just payed $2 million for a building and want to convert it into a single-family residence it's really not a huge amount to just get rid of the hassle.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

Haven't hard of payouts that high

Maybe 30K tops for a falt with a few tenants in it, so 10K each.

Much more than that and it's cheaper to Ellis the turds out of there.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

Lets ask Marcos what his

Lets ask Marcos what his payout was. It's how he was able to buy a condo in the mission.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

It would make no sense to pay off a tenant more than

the cost of Ellis'ing him. Maybe Marcos has money that you don't know about.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

Nope. He's talked about it

Nope. He's talked about it here. Received money to vacate a rent controlled unit and used it to buy a condo

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 8:14 pm

Pay subsidies to landlords after rents have skyrocketed?

Rents are now 300-400% higher than they were only 20 years ago, and you think taxpayers should subsidize these outrageous rents to private landlords. Landlords, who by the way, have seen their wealth skyrocket over the same period? Nice.

Rent subsidies are a great idea if you're in the real estate or landlord business, but not so great if you're a taxpayer or someone who thinks education, health, transportation or BUILDING new housing are better places to spend extremely limited government tax dollars rather than lining the pockets of a private landlord.

Be thankful both Democrats and Republicans already give multi-billlion dollar welfare subsidies to the landlord class, with most of the subsidies going to wealthy landlords in chic places like SF, Manhattan, west LA, Chicago and other bastions of the Democratic Party. Be thankful newspaper investigative reporting no longer exists so there aren't pesky journalists asking politicians embarassing questions about how many billlions of tax write-offs they give to landlords each year. Be thankful there is still enough tax money around to keep a well-armed police force to prevent tenants and rabble-rousers from just seizing the real estate for themselves with no future rent or mortgage payments whatsoever to you or your landlord brethern.

Landlording is one small step above slavery. It's a blight on civil, human society. It's a remnant from times when the warlike humans overcame the weak and peaceful humans.

The land was once free. And most housing has already been built and paid for many times over. Our housing costs should be a small fraction of our work week and not the current 2+ days of weekly labor.

Add in the 30-50% combined federal, state and local taxes that most working people pay - another 2 or 3 days of weekly labor - and the connection to outright slavery gets even closer.

Private landlording must end before society can get back on track. Simple solutions like eliminating the multi-billion dollar welfare subsidies to landlords would help encourage landlords to get out of the business. Capital gain taxes of 75% or higher on all landlord property sales would help. Eliminating tax losses on real estate loans and property sales would help too, but then the 6 trillion dollars of loan write-offs from the recent real esate meltdown wouldn't become juicy tax deductions for GE, GMAC, and every big bank and other big financial institution.

There's no better feeling than earning billions of profits and then getting phony tax deductions from the government to lower the tax bill. But neither political party would ever change this result, so landlords, bankers and the real estate insdustry can party on without a care, at least so long as there is enough money to hire police, sheriff deputies, judges and jails to protect your property from the rabble.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

"remnant from times when the warlike humans overcame the weak

peaceful humans."

When has this NOT been the case?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

Private landlording must end?

It didn't even end in Communist Russia at it's worst.

Why not seek something attainable?

And by the way, landlords pay tax on their profits too. But without those profits, we'd Ellis every rental and then what would you do?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:04 pm

Soviet Russia is your example?

Russia was one of the most feudalistic countries in the world less than 100 years ago, followed by totalitarian regimes that took a decidedly anti-humanistic view towards ruling its subjects, while adopting a control and command economic system that wasn't noted for very many technological improvements or very high quality goods. This was followed more recently by totalitarian regimes and a ruling oligarchy, with some of the richest billionaires on earth getting very fat on public resources (oil, precious metals and other natural resources.) Russia is the classic case study of how not to run a country or organize an economic system.

Between Gorbachev's peristroika in the late 1980's until the mid 1990's, real estate in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other major cities went from $4 a month (not a typo!) to $5,000 a month, with rent levels equal to or even higher than New York, London, Paris, Tokyo and Shanghai. Lots of people got very rich from Russia real estate, but far less than 1% of the population saw a dime from it. It turns out private landlords in Russia, London, New York and San Francisco are exactly the same: charge as much rent as possible, pay as little tax as possible and work the politicians for favorable zoning and development concessions. Sound familiar?

Private landlords add nothing to an economy. They create social and economic stresses to society when private owners control something as basic as a roof over one's head, with 15 pages of rent rules, annual rent increases, and minimal property upkeep.

One of the reasons the US was once a great economic power is that it had cheap housing, a highly educated workforce and lots of disposible income. Since the 1970's the politicians, bondholders and landlords have worked together to ensure that housing costs, taxes and bond payments have skyrocketed, leaving vast segments of society much worse off economically. High rents led to high wages. High wages led to higher rents. Now wages are so high that most US workes are priced much too expensively to compete with workers elsewhere. Not so good for building a solid economic base when companies can easiy move elsewhere where costs are much lower and growth and profit prospects are much greater.

We should be loudly applauding politicians, landlords and bondholders for their brilliant efforts over the past 40 years of turning this once great economic powerhouse into a very feeble, wounded country, while concentrating ever more wealth and power into the hands of the few.

It's long past the time to tell private landlords their services aren't needed any longer and please go find some productive work that actually contributes something useful to economic growth and prosperity.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 10:47 pm

Tin, yes, we know that YOU think it's a serious issue.

But you said that it was a serious issue for Lee and that he would have to deal with it.

Why would Lee see inward investment, economic vitality and increased tax revenues as an "issue"? Surely he'd be thrilled?

It wasn't me who said that RC distorts the market, although it quite clearly does, else it would have no effect. Presumably what you really mean is that it is a positive distortion.

It's fine for you to believe that as long as I can believe that the analogous Prop 13 is equally beneficial in helping those who have "put down roots".

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Rent control doesn't distort anything

The only affect rent control has on the rental market is that it helps keep more money in the tenant's pocket and less money in the much wealthier landlord's pocket. But this is not a market "distortion," merely a government policy that tries to maintain some social and economic stability among its residents. It's fairly obviouls high rents do not help the "Main Sreet economy" since tenants then have less money to spend on other goods and services in the local community.

A landlord charges as much rent as the community is willing to pay. If there is another unit in the building that is under rent control at a much lower current rent, it has no impact - repeat, no impact on the rent charged for a newly vacant unit. If people will pay $4,000 for a 2-bedroom unit, then that's the rent price. If people can pay $6,000, $8,000, or only $2,000, then that's the rent price. The adjacent rent-controlled unit doesn't affect, much less distort, the rent charged for a vacant unit.

And since it's not always obvious to some people, the rent price is not dependent on whether the property tax is high or low, or if the building has been paid in full or has a high monthly mortgage cost. The rent will be whatever someone is willing to pay for the unit, which is obviously based on the relative incomes of the community residents and the availabilty of rental units in the area. (Yes, regardless of what you read time and again in the Bay Guardian, basic supply and demand factors are at play with SF and Bay Area real estate.)

The landlording industry affects the local community since landlords generally want to spend as little money and time as possible on upkeep and amenities, but they want to charge as much rent as possible. But this does not distort the rent charged on a vacant rental unit; it only affects the amount of money tenants have left over to spend in the local, "real economy."

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

If RC didn't distort anything, it would have no effect.

And if it had no effect, then there'd be no reason to support it.

RC doesn't help the poor. It helps the lucky.

RC hinders new arrivals in SF, as it artifically reduces the number of vacant units available, thereby increasing rents.

RC deters new build of rental housing - developers choose to build condo's, as they are exempt from RC.

RC deters landlords from ever fixing up their buildings, thereby encouraging squalor.

RC is a disaster except for a declining number of 40 plus tenants who are too scared to move. What kind of life is that?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

!!!!

'declining number of 40+ tenants', that comment sure makes you sound like a pretty loathsome individual; 'to scared to move', what on earth are you talking about; It has been, and will continue to be, a pretty damn good life thank you.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 7:14 pm

Of course it's a great life

Of course it's a great life when your landlord has subsidized your rent for thirty years. We should all be so lucky!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

???

Oh, I thought you just said it was a 'sad' life. Why would the 'owners' stay in the business if it causes them so much hardship.
While this may somewhat tangential to the topic here, and you may find it difficult to make the connection, you mention 'subsidies'. Who has been 'subsidizing' the artificially low prices you/we pay for various commodities, for example gasoline for your SUV, agricultural products, and recently the banking industry. Your rock is feeling lonely, I suggest you crawl back under it before someone else moves in and you find yourself homeless.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 9:09 am

I dont own a car. I live in a

I dont own a car. I live in a condo which does not have a lawn or a garden. I work and pay my bills and have no concerns with the banking industry. My rock is safe, and I feel lucky.

Tell me this, would you buy a property with a 30 year long term rent controlled tenant? If you would, then I might have some wonderful seaside property to sell you on the farallones.

again its mindboggling. Rent controlled at early 80's pricing with extremely minimal increases year over year and unable to get yourself in a more stable solution.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 9:29 am

'no concerns with the banking

'no concerns with the banking industry'. Your disconnect is mindboggling.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 9:41 am

I meant specifically with my

I meant specifically with my mortgage. There are obviously huge concerns with the banking industry as a whole.

Thanks for skipping over my other points.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 10:05 am

Bubble Boy

"Other points".
I don't own a car either, never have, bicycle-Muni-walking.
I've also worked and paid my bills, probably for decades longer than you.
I imagine your 'condo', like most, is not actually real estate but suspended in mid air and dependent on the real estate and foundation it is sitting on?. Hope it meets all current earthquake requirements.
Would I buy property such as you describe - my momma didn't raise no fool. Neither would I buy anything 'up in the air.
I feel very 'stable', thank you for caring. Much more so than if I was in hock to the Banks and Mortgage shylocks.
One of my points you skipped over, I imagine you still eat, thanks to massive subsides to corporate agri-business/petro-chemical industries. I imagine you can purchase your food within walking distance of your aerie, but how do you think it gets there, there is no such thing as the food fairy.
Did I skip anything.
Why aren't you at work.
Just my 2c.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 10:35 am

All government rules have effects. The issue was "distortion."

Good job changing the subject, but the assertion someone made was that "RC distorts the market." As I pointed out, it has no distortion effect on the market for vacant units.

The reason to support RC is that it keeps more money in the pockets of the residents who live in the city, who then have more money to spend in the local community. Rent control also protects people from being forced out of the city if their incomes do not match whatever high rents can be charged at some later date.

Rent is based on whatever someone will pay and not whether there is rent control or not. In a town like SF where there are often 50 people who show up to rent a vacant unit, the rent charged will be as high as someone is willing to pay, who is otherwise suitable to the landlord (ie, student passing through town; young tech workers who will likely buy a house or condo in the near future, etc.) The rent charged is a supply and demand issue - the same basic economic rule that applies in London, Manhattan, Paris, west LA, Tokyo and other big cities - where the housing demand far outstrips the housing supply.

As for your other points - mostly repeated by Chris Pratt below - they apply to all landlord-tenant situations everywhere and are not specific to San Francisco.

All landlords try to minimize upkeep costs and property improvements while maximizing the rent they charge. It applies the same in every town, rent control or not. Besides, SF has a system that allows landlords to recover capital improvement costs to existing tenants, so that argument is bogus here anyway.

Rent control does not "limit the number of units available." There are 50 people for every cvacant unit. Even if rent control was abolished tomorrow and 100,000 people were forced out of the city because they couldn't afford current market rents, then there might be 40 prospective tenants for each vacant unit. Current rent prices woud hardly budge and would stabilize at the higher level within one month after all of the vacant the units were full again.

Rent control does not deter new housing construction. For starters, rent control doesn't apply to new construction. More tellingly, San Francisco has built far more new housing units over the past 20 years compared to the number of new units built in the other 90+ non-rent conrolled Bay Area cities. Compare the number of new units built in San Rafael, Lafayette, Saratoga or Burlingame - all non-rent controlled cities - and argue with a straight face that San Francisco rent control retards new construction.

The last point - rent control deters landlord improvements - applies to every landlord in every city in every country of the world. Landlords price their vacant units to mazimize rent revenue and try to minimize expenses whenever possible. Landlords are greedy everywhere. Always have been, always will be. Rent control doesn't change that dynamic other than throttle down the greed part a little bit.

And as far as "tenants being too scared to move," Prop 13 has had the same effect on long-time homeowners. Both long-term tenants and homeowners are locked in placed since if they move their housing costs skyrocket. Neither is a very good system for homeowners or tenants, but the landlord industry and wealthy bondholders have strong influence over the government and the world. Always have, and probably always will. It's the main reason why the economic system in the US has bifurcated so sharply between the wealthy landlords, bondholders and shareholders vs. everyone else, with the government unions and upper income classes working hard to maintain their tenuous position over the bottom 60% of society, albeit below the very elite 5%ers.

Most landlords aren't builders. They're passive investors and property speculators living off the productivity of tenants and the community. Rather than wasting time "banning" Happy Meal toys (that McDonald's complied with very deftly- big surprise), the local government should be banning private landlords from the city. But we all know the Democratic Party and big landlords have a "special relationship," so don't expect the "liberal" Democratic Party SF supervisors to take on the private landlord industry anytime soon.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

"...more money to spend in the community..."

For example. I'm not a heavy consumer, frugal but with champagne taste on a beer budget. The vast majority of the money I spend goes to a wide variety local small businesses. You do the math, but instead of paying out about $3,000 per month for almost 40 years in interest to banks, money lenders, mortgage companies etc, I have 'bought locally', it's just a little drop in a big bucket but they all add up.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

because if you had purchased

because if you had purchased - and BTW you'd be purchasing a castle if you bought in 1981 and your mortgage was 3k a month - you wouldn't have supported those local businesses at all. You would have completely halted all purchasing and spent all your money on your mortgage.

You're not terribly smart are you?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 01, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

DUH!!

Exactly my point. You really are pretty dense and stupid aren't you. Why don't you join the book of the month club in your condo and learn how to read and comprehend. Or just go sit in your tub blowing bubbles and playing with you little rubber duckie.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 02, 2011 @ 12:46 am

Bubble Boy

Congratulations, out of all the ignorant trolls who post here, you are probably Top of The Flops.
My home is my castle.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 02, 2011 @ 12:59 am

Bubble boy

SPEAK! Monk. RN speaks the truth!

Posted by Dumb bitch on Dec. 02, 2011 @ 1:23 am

1) I was being sarcastic.

1) I was being sarcastic. clearly it would have been impossible for you to completely halt all outside purchases - you would have starved. I guess that point was missed on you

2) say your rent was 500 a month x 30 years = 180k. You say your home is your castle - except its not your home, its your landlords. You have spent a pretty decent amount of money to rent it - and you have zero equity. You could be evicted and you'd have nothing.

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating your understanding!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 02, 2011 @ 7:48 am

Not sure I fully understand

Not sure I fully understand your argument, with supply constrained by tenants remaining in the units at below market rate, there will always be a limit to the vacated units, so driving prices up.

Landlords are reluctant to pour further money into a building when the rents do not cover upgrades.

If you think landlords have it so good explain why they are so keen to get out of the business?

Look at markets out side of SF, this is a not a good town to be a landlord in. It is often more economical to leave a unit vacant than to rent.

One unmentioned consequence to Rent Control. You will be hard pressed to find a landlord who will rent to a Family, Married Couple, Old Person or Disabled Person. As the laws make it prohibative, most landlords look for PHD students who will pay, and who will vacate in a couple of years. Not really good for diversity.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

Most attempts at social engineering end up suffering from

the law of unintended consequences.

When Rent Control was ended in Boston, Mass, the average rent went down.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 5:56 pm

You're just a pratt, chris

(kidding)

Posted by Chromefields on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 11:09 am

thats a new one :)

thats a new one :)

Posted by Chris Pratt on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 11:17 am