It's not just that. NYC is not built up the way it should be, and most of the buildup of recent years is condos. For many years, there was a ridiculous incongruity in NYC: sky high rents and abandoned buildings. Why renovate when you can't charge rents commensurately? These days it's mostly a Harlem/Inwood phenomenon.

By the way, why is "allowing" people to stay in "their" homes (fine print: homes which are not really theirs) a good thing? Are unskilled workers somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers? Do retirees deserve to live close to young workers jobs more than the young workers do?

A guy with a family has a very good reason to pay more for a house close to his job.

The argument that rent control prevents owners from maintaining their buildings is pure bullshit. There's not a rent-control law in existence that doesn't allow annual increases sufficient for maintenance. Buildings aren't maintained because the owner sees the opportunity for dramatically increased profits if the current tenant leaves and lets the building fall to shit in an effort to drive them out.

As for why allowing people to stay in their homes is a good thing (and forgive me for being sentimental, but these are their homes, even if other people own the buildings - they do live there): there a few things that bother me about the free market religion:

1. The belief that all things with value have been priced appropriately.

2. The belief that ownership is the only form of risk that should be rewarded by society.

Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live.

As for whether unskilled workers are somehow more deserving of a house in Manhattan than skilled workers: no, but then again, they don't deserve to be run away from their jobs and families simply because some rich asshole can price them out, either. You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know.

In NYC, future crazy regulations are always a worry. Most new construction IS rent controlled. My previous apartment (built to be condos, but the owner was unable to sell) was. To evade various ridiculous NYC taxes (which make a lot of new construction unviable), you need to submit to rent control.

"if landlords can't charge rents commensurately, where are the sky high rents coming from?"

Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings.

Incidentally, neither of the "things that bother you about the free market religion" are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage.

"Neighborhoods don't just magically become expensive to live in. I won't claim that the only reason is because good, noble people moved in when things were cheap and turned things around, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the people living in a place have nothing to do with that place becoming a desirable place for wealthier people to live."

In some cases the people are completely unrelated. The main attraction to living in Harlem is the 1-6 trains. Having tried to get a sublet for my old place, I discovered that the people living there make it less desirable to live in.

"You're making an emotional appeal for a guy with a family to have a right to be close to his job - that cuts both ways, you know."

As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other. As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes.

One thing I've thought about is who is paying for the new light rail in Seattle and who will be receiving the benefits of it. It won't be in my current area until 2030, but I'll be paying taxes for it for 21 years. People who move her then get it for free, and since we could say they've been living cheaper elsewhere by not paying for this light rail, they can now bid more for the same area, driving up prices. So the laws should force newcomers to pay up their share of past costs. Otherwise, there is a disincentive to improve our area.

In summary, maybe the current residents shouldn't get rent control, but you new residents should pay plenty on top of rent.

Agreeing to not displace people to cash in on temporary market swings seems like a better tax shelter than some others I've heard of.

"Sky high rents come from current demand. Rent control provides a disincentive to long term investments like new construction or major renovations to rental buildings."

This doesn't make any sense. Without the current rent-control laws, the incentive would be to keep the housing supply low and spike rental rates. New construction would still be difficult (because it's NYC), plus current owners would spend their political capital on preventing it from happening to keep their incomes up.

"Incidentally, neither of the 'things that bother you about the free market religion' are actually part of the free market ideology. 1) only applies to efficient markets (like the rental market, with many buyers and sellers, and good information) and 2) is closer to the Clinton/Bush/Dodd/Obama ideology that ownership is something to encourage."

Maybe I should be more clear, my fault. My first point has less to do with pricing efficiency than with the basic idea that certain things with value can be priced at all (a person's contribution to the appeal of a neighborhood, for instance). My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value).

"In some cases the people are completely unrelated."

Of course, I never implied otherwise. My next sentence after the one you quoted was that I wouldn't claim such a thing. As for Harlem, I was almost going to use that to illustrate my point. Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way. Assuming living in the city stays cool, do you really think it's going to be as cheap as it is today in five years? And everyone who's moving there right now, who are going to make it that super-desirable place to live? They'll be priced out (see: SoHo, parts of Brooklyn, Hell's Kitchen, etc., etc).

"As far as who "deserves" to live on some place, it's a wash. So lets not favor any particular group over the other."

I disagree, let's favor the particular group that was already there, that's already established the place as their home.

"As far as emotional appeals go, I'm not casting any group of people as assholes."

Really? I've got some rental agencies to introduce you to.

Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider. Absent rent control, the incentive for any individual housing supplier would be to build more houses and cash in.

By your logic, dell should (in the absence of computer-price control laws) cut back on computer production to spike prices. Of course, that's ridiculous; HP, Asus, Everex and others will pick up the slack and Dell will lose money.

As for other landlords engaging in rent seeking, that's a problem, but a separate one.

"My second point was that there are other kinds of risk (living in a bad neighborhood for its cheap rent) that should be rewarded by society over ownership (the windfall that the owner of a slum stumbles into as the neighborhood appreciates in value)."

Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent.

"Prices there are a lot cheaper there right now than the location would suggest they should be, and (despite your experience) tons of people are starting to look that way."

Prices are a lot cheaper than they should be precisely because newcomers don't want to live near Harlem natives. High prices elsewhere are driving people here, but the locals are not helping things. As an example of the issues, several of my female visitors have been hassled on their way home. So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?

Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units. Plus, maybe you live in the neighborhood yourself, and you'd hate to see soulless apartment blocks go in, and if they did go in, all the charm and neighborliness that makes it so great and desirable in the first place disappears, and prices collapse. You really don't think that guy is spending his political capital on preventing new apartment construction in his awesome neighborhood? I know that's how it happens in the Mission in SF, where I'm living now.

"Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent."

Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control.

"So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?"

I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in. It's pretty cynical if you think that's just the hip locals who moved in only a little before the rest of the wave. Harlem is a little rough today in parts, but I fucking love that part of town. Crime hurts everyone; people who are less well-off have just as much right to live in a crime-free neighborhood as everyone else. Squint a little, and maybe you can see it another way: how much does it suck that the rich white people have to move in before a neighborhood gets policed properly?

So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses. And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit.

They sound like the villain in a poorly written movie. (I should be more specific; it's not all builders, since condos do get built. I guess these problems only apply to the rental market.)

"Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control."

It's probably not very bad by this time. Why should I continue to get the reward?

"I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in."

Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy?

And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?

As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile.

Yes. Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should.

"And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit."

When you're out of new land to build on (NYC or SF, for instance; interesting how those are the two cities we keep coming back to, isn't it?), and other greedy people would have to buy your land or building, then yes.

"Why should I continue to get the reward?"

Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad. It's not like you're paying the same amount that you used to - rent does still go up in rent-control environments - you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation.

"Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?"

I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing? The thugs hassling your friends walking home? Homeless people? Are they reliable taxpayers? And as for people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, there are noise laws in most places...

"As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile."

You said that people don't move to Harlem because they don't want to get hassled by the undesirable locals. I was just saying that those undesirable locals are probably just as undesirable for the current locals as well. I assumed you meant criminal, since the example you gave was your friends being threatened on their walk home - nobody should have to put up with that.

"I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile."

Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?

All it takes is a few people to behave greedily. And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems?

"Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad."

I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here.

"...you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation."

I think you misspelled "be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days".

"I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing?"

The locals that make a place undesirable to live in. You advocate rewarding certain stationary locals who create positive externalities ("make the neighborhood worth living in"). The flip side of that is to punish negative externalities.

It's something along the lines of rewarding the creators of public art (who create positive externalities), while punishing polluters (who create negative externalities).

"Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?"

If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy?

Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth.

A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense.

"And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems?"

I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here?

"I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here."

Did you mug anyone? Sell drugs? Piss on other people's porches? Litter? Pay your rent on time? Spend money in the local stores? Occasionally smile at your neighbors? Call the cops when you saw someone breaking into a car? You don't have to be a hero to make a part of town a better place.

"I think you misspelled 'be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days'."

Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job, so they spend less time with their family, or maybe even need to get a new one. Any local support systems? Churches that sometimes helped with groceries, trusted neighbors to help with babysitting, etc, all gone.

"The locals that make a place undesirable to live in."

Okay, you come up with a way to enforce it, I'm all for it. Rent control is easy, and it has roughly the same effect in upwardly-mobile neighborhoods.

"If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy?"

Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. My goal is not kicking people out of their homes because rich people would rather have them.

"Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth."

So, wait, hold on: you want to kick people who are even worse off than you financially out of their homes so that you can afford a bit cheaper apartment now that your girlfriend broke up with you?

You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will?

"I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here?"

You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this.

Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction?

"Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job,..."

And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile?

"Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. "

In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all.

No, when did I say anything that implied that?

"You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this.

Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction?"

No, I claimed that the removal of rent control would incentivize some owners to oppose new construction, and that current rent control doesn't disincentivize new building.

"And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile?"

Seriously? You're seriously claiming that the person who just moves into an area has equivalent roots in the area as the person who has lived there since 1971? Come on, be serious.

"In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all."

Yeah, people moving into expensive areas and bidding up rent prices generally aren't wealthy, my bad.

My impression was that in a housing market without rent control, people are displaced by periodic, incremental yet substantial increases in rent, not a one-time multiplication of rent. If that's the case, then it's not an issue of the poor being displaced by the wealthy. It's people being displaced by others who are a rung or two above them on the economic ladder.

You're also not taking into account poorer people who want to move every once in a while instead of staying in the same place. They end up having to pay the rent control tax each time they move just like the "wealthy." Taxing mobility is rife with unintended consequences.

This certainly includes many among the rich and powerful, but I don't think this brush can be applied to developers in general. What is their goal in places where there is no more land to build on, like NY and SF, but to reconfigure it and make it more available (affordable) to more people? Of course they seek profit and some people are substantially inconvenienced in the process, but in the broad perspective it creates value. Whatever its flaws, Manhattan offers more to more people now than it did 100 years ago.

Are they not greedy, those who are renting their spots in these desirable locations and who are using the government's guns to keep others out? As a voting constituency they're leveraging the force of government to serve their own individual interests, seemingly unconcerned about the consequences for everyone else.

I find it ironic that they wield the term "greed" with immunity.

By my count you've used the term "wild fluctuations" or "wild market fluctuations" in four assertions / reassertions, and this started with my question to you based specifically on your use of this term. Its actual meaning and your intended meaning are certainly relevant to the conversation.

You win the argument over the semantics of two words... congratulations?

And honestly, I only ceded the point about the terminology because I thought it would prompt you to finally make your on-topic point. "Fluctuation" can certainly mean "movement from low to high" without being in error - read your own definition. I guess you really don't have anything to contribute, though.

Rent control only really exists in large cities that have experienced wild market fluctuations (in the form of surging rent prices) that displaced renters.

If there weren't surging rents displacing people, why would there be rent control? In that case, I would yield them... but in that case, they wouldn't have existed in the first place. So I still miss your point.

fluc⋅tu⋅a⋅tion   [fluhk-choo-ey-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. continual change from one point or condition to another. 2. wavelike motion; undulation.

This does not subsume longer-term trends.

EDIT: I want to know if your issue is simply with rising prices. If it is -- and it seems pretty clear that it is -- don't use misleading/distracting/inaccurate verbiage like "wild fluctuations".

You say this as if it's not a side effect of rent control itself.

Helping people avoid being priced out of their neighborhoods is desirable, but rent control has so many side effects that it's not worth it in my opinion. It's basically taxing people when they move to or within a city to pay the rent for people who have stayed in the same place. There are probably better ways to achieve that goal.

BTW, I'm not a necessarily a fan of rent control, I just like its goal. I really don't know enough about the issue to make an informed policy decision either way. My main point originally was just that this article was terrible - stupidly reasoned and completely lacking in meaningful evidence that would let me make an informed policy decision.

Read that paragraph slowly and see if you can find the causal relationship between rent control and buildings not being maintained. It's easier to find than Waldo...

While true that it doesn't prevent them by force of law from maintaining the buildings, the natural profit-seeking motivations will cause a sharp increase in deferred or eliminated maintenance and improvements, as the landlord wins either way: either they save 1-2% in current expenses or they get to reset the rent to market rents if the tenant gets too sick of their shithole. Seems pretty far from "pure bullshit" to me...

Anyways, from the POV of the tenant who is faced with eviction or a gradually deteriorating building, which do you think is the preferable option?

However, eviction is not the alternative to rent control. Being evicted is different from having your rent raised to market rates, and is different from having your lease not renewed. It may be a legal consequence of tenants deciding not to leave and/or not to pay a higher rent, but it's not like the choice we're debating is eviction vs rent control.

As to my restatement, you claimed that argument X is "pure bullshit" in a short paragraph that shows you clearly understand that argument X is much more accurate than inaccurate. If quoting that paragraph and asking you to observe that contradiction makes me a prick, so be it. (I'll admit to being sarcastic; if you want to call me a prick on the internet over it, I'll still sleep OK.)

Eviction is the alternative to rent control in the cases where rent control matters - if the tenant can't afford market rates, then they get evicted.

Since CATO can obviously afford to do a proper study of the effects of rent control -- I can only assume that they know it won't support their idealogical position.