Posted on 02/02/2016 9:49:45 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you're interested in whether rent control makes rent prices go down or not -- and plenty of people think it actually makes them go up -- then stop what you're doing right now and watch this video on San Francisco's real estate war, by my colleague Andrew Stern. The video features a heart-breaking interview with artist David Brenkus, who has lived in a rent-controlled apartment on Walter Street for 34 years. His building has been bought and now he is being evicted so that the new landlord can move in. Brenkus's rent is $735 month for a two-bedroom apartment, which includes a woodshop in the basement.
And this is the centre of the entire rent control debate, whether it's in San Francisco, New York, London or anywhere else: Rents and property prices are undeniably high. Low- and moderate-income workers are being forced out of neighbourhoods they have been living in for years. And yet ...
... Brenkus' bargain-rate flat has turned out to be his undoing. Rent control is great if you're poor, at least in the short-term. But here is a guy who has had three decades to get his act together and buy his own place. He failed, undoubtedly, because $735 for a five-room spread tempted him into staying just a bit long, just a bit longer, just a bit longer, and he never got around to obtaining a mortgage on his own place. (You can read a bit more about Brenkus's situation here and here.)
It's a perfect illustration of the way rent control can hurt the poor and benefit the rich, even though it is intended to do the opposite. Rent control might help poor people temporarily, but because they don't own the place they are screwed in the long-term.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
He’s not “screwed” at all - he got decades of below-market rent for a rather large place by SF rental standards, in Duboce park which is a highly desirable “hip” neighborhood.
He could find a similarly cheap place out in the East Bay somewhere, and if its about art anywhere will do I would think.
There is all the rest of Northern California. Eureka maybe, its cheap there.
The reason that starving artists went to SF in his day was because traditional businesses and old residents were moving out of town, and SF (large parts of it) was cheap. Its not cheap now, somewhere else is.
Nope, not for me.
More expensive than you say. My daughter and her husband were renting a two room apartment in SF for $1600 for the last few years. They moved out in early 2015 for a larger place for them and their two young kids. Owner hiked the rent on the new tenant to $3000. The apartment did come with a garage for their car; garages are in shorter supply than apartments. Rent control is the cause of higher rents, because it's causing landlords to pull housing off the rental market or stay out completely, causing lower supplies. In the meantime, you can't blame landlords for hiking it on new tenants to make up for held-down rents due to rent control.
There are tons of very nice houses in Sacramento for under $1500.
Many of these California tourist towns presently can do short term rentals (1 week more or less) to tourists for huge amounts. This to a certain extent drives up regular rental costs.
Additionally the short term rental phenomenon does not take into account the exceedingly high rent in San Francisco real estate based on supply (short) and demand (high) as well as the very high wages made in the technology industry in the San Francisco area compared to the 'regular job' salaries. All of which drives up rental costs to limits--when compared to normal markets--that are atmospheric.
Usually it’s not leaving New York— it’s leaving Manhattan, the navel of the universe for these people.
the video mentioned $1800.00 per square foot rental cost in San Francisco. This guy was comparably living there for pennies. :( Now he cries like it was owed to him.
True.e
People get hooked in living in the Bay area and are paying premium rents to live in the Bay area.
“There are tons of very nice houses in Sacramento for under $1500.”
Sacramento? Might as well be Bakersfield or Fort Dodge Iowa
Why buy your own place. Following the law puts the blame on voters not the tenant
Government controlled prices or rents lead to increases in quantity demanded and reduction in quantity supplied and quality of supply, both of which lead to shortages and hatred between buyer and seller and chaos in distribution.
When we lived in San Fran in the 80’s, we paid 1100.00 for a 2 bedroom ranch with no garage. Can’t imagine what the guy is charging these days.
Legal cover? There is none:
“...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Just shows just how long the Constitution has been ignored, abused and subjected to the will of of Socialism.
I know an elderly widow lady who has to try to survive on a tiny Social Security check and who has to pay $500.00 a month rent in an apartment project that is supposed to charge rent according to your income. Most of the tenants are welfare queens on ‘section 8’ where they pay as little as $120.00 a month or less.
This is disgusting.
If you have business in SF its two hours to downtown, Amtrak Capital Corridor + BART from Richmond. I do it the other way a couple of days a month.
If its for business this is I think worth the commute, at a savings of @$2000/month for similar standard of living.
>> Rent control might help poor people temporarily, but because they don’t own the place they are screwed in the long-term.
That makes a lot of sense. Not.
BI - Business Idiots.
Probably 3500-5000/mo with no water views,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.