Correspondence - Non-Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building of affordable housing? All economists on right and left from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman agree that the answer is no." This is kind of funny to me. I don't know where the idea that "no one likes landlords" comes from. My current landlord isn't so bad. To the second point: I am glad to see that "all economists" agree that rent control neither lowers or raises housing costs. That's a good point in favor of rent control. Indeed, rent control does not increase building affordable housing. That's not the intent of rent control. Additionally, this second video is again using an incorrect definition of rent control where vacancy control exists (which is not legal in California). ""in a survey... \[of economists\] 93% said ceilings on rents reduce quantity of units available." Yes. When tenants aren't having to shuffle around because of the whims of LLs, vacancy rates are low. I don't think that a city having a low vacancy rate is a bad thing. What is a bad thing in my opinion is when there are lots of units, but lots of homelessness. What is the worth in having a lot of vacant units for people not from our City to move into at really high rates not reflective of Santa Ana's AMI? If our residents can remain housed in our city for the long term, I don't see that as a bad thing. Rent control is not a mechanism to increase the supply of housing - its a mechanism to ensure stability in the local market and communities. Conflating rent control with separate mechanisms and policies to increase supply is irresponsible to people who just want to remain in the city where they have lived laughed and loved sometimes for multiple generations. "But what about the majority of renters \[living in RC units in NYC\] who have less money \[than higher income individuals living in RC units\]? They're not so lucky because LLs can't afford to improve or even maintain their rent controlled units since they can't raise rents to market levels" This statement is pertaining to NYC's rent control laws. It is not comparable to the two ordinances that Santa Ana is considering. LLs will be able to petition for increases above the max amounts provided they show proof of necessary repairs or upgrades. "Another reason LLs have little incentive to maintain RC units \[is because\] they have no fear that their renters will move out \[of RC units\]. and if the tenants move out, there's always a long line of people waiting to move in." The video admits that RC brings stability to tenants and then leans into the idea that LLs who own and operate RC units are slumlords. That's semi-offensive to LLs who actually utilize the max allowable increases towards repairs and upgrades. "Why would investors build new apartments for anyone but the very wealthy in a city where rents are controlled? The answer of course is that they rarely do. The vast majority of new residential construction in NYC is geared towards the wealthy who can pay rents above the controlled limit or who are willing to buy their apartments outright as condos or co-ops." New construction, especially in already dense areas such as NYC, rely on capital financing for the construction of such. If in fact it is true that "investors rarely build new apartments in NYC" I don't believe for one second that RC is the sole cause for such. Additionally, NYC is its own beast. Many cities with rent control - Beverly Hills is one such place interestingly enough - still have new developments and construction taking place. It is no accident that USA cities with rent control are the some of the most highly desired areas. In California, there has never been a point in its history that supply of housing units kept pace with demand. People love California, and that has always been true. I would conjecture that will continue to remain true no matter any local regulations upon any type of business taking place. "To understand how RC affects the rental housing market in the long term, let's look at the most basic laws of economics. More supply of apts would mean lower rents... building more rental housing to increase supply will cause rents to decrease" At a purely theoretical level, when we look at the supply curve, we see that as the quantity increases, the cost of producing the units increases. Makes sense. But price isn't determined solely by supply. Add in the demand curve and we see that when there is low quantity, the price to consume is high. Conversely, people demand less when the price is high. This is the key point in California, especially in OC. No matter what happens to the supply of rentable units - or housing units in general - the demand curve keeps prices unchanged in Santa Ana. It's just a great place to live. Additionally, supply and demand for basic human rights such as housing don't really apply because supply and demand curves discuss widgets. Most tenants aren't 3