pkern@csri.toronto.edu (pkern) (02/24/88)
If phasing out rent controls would be expensive now, wouldn't it be even more expensive further on down the road? Should rent controls continue indefinitely? Would phasing out rent controls cause an increase in rental housing?
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/25/88)
Well, there's little question that the situation today needs fixing. Towns these days have vacancy rates less than 1% which causes a real problem. Then you also have two classes of appartments. First there are the rent controlled ones. Tennants all love low rent, so these are usually always full, often with long waiting lists. If there isn't a waiting list, it's because the place is one of those that the landlord has semi-abandoned due to non-profitability. Many appartments under rent control get almost no maintenance, and it's no wonder why, when the owner is reduced to a custodian with almost no control on the property. On the other hand, the new buildings, not under rent review, are where the vacancies are, but at prices that look bad compared to the controlled places. There is no rent review on new buildings, in theory to encourage new construction, but the vacancy rates we're getting show that this isn't working well. With a large base of cheap, controlled appartments around, it's a lot harder to get tennants into a new, profitable place than it would be in a free market. What seems to has happened is that builders have all realized that the money (and free market) is in units for sale - houses and condos. Lots of those going up, and fewer and fewer rental units, even with the tax breaks they gave. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
eem@csri.toronto.edu (Evangelos Milios) (02/27/88)
In article <1433@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Well, there's little question that the situation today needs fixing. > >On the other hand, the new buildings, not under rent review, are where >the vacancies are, but at prices that look bad compared to the controlled Rents these days are way out of line with respect to salaries people make. Paying at least $1000/mo + utils for a 2bdrm apt in Toronto on a salary of 32K/yr is ridiculous. A family with children and a non-working spouse simply cannot survive. > >There is no rent review on new buildings, in theory to encourage new >construction, but the vacancy rates we're getting show that this isn't >working well. With a large base of cheap, controlled appartments around, >it's a lot harder to get tennants into a new, profitable place than it >would be in a free market. True, but a new profitable place is far too expensive for the average person. So thank God there are controlled apartments around, which are by no means cheap, but almost within reach of the average person. > >What seems to has happened is that builders have all realized that the >money (and free market) is in units for sale - houses and condos. Lots of >those going up, and fewer and fewer rental units, even with the tax breaks >they gave. > So why are people crazy about buying their own home? Because rents are too expensive, even with rent control. That drives house prices up, and that in turn drives rents up for new houses or old houses that enter the market for the first time. I am in favor of rent control. Without it, in a .01% vacancy rate, only the sky is the limit of what greedy landlords may ask for rent. The only solution I see is for the city or the province to support more co-op housing projects, so that people who cannot afford to buy can still get decent housing at reasonable prices outside the "free market" economy. Otherwise, the average person is steadily being squeezed out of Toronto or forced into a substandard quality of living, inhabiting basements or delapidated dwellings. -- Evangelos E. Milios Internet(UUCP,ARPANET,BITNET,CSNET): Department of Computer Science eem@ai.toronto.edu University of Toronto X.400 (CDNNET/JANET): user@ai.toronto.cdn Toronto, Canada, M5R 3C2 Obsolete addresses (just in case):
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/28/88)
In article <1988Feb26.225840.21116@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> eem@csri.toronto.edu (Evangelos Milios) writes: >True, but a new profitable place is far too expensive for the average person. >So thank God there are controlled apartments around, which are by no means >cheap, but almost within reach of the average person. >> >So why are people crazy about buying their own home? Because rents are too >expensive, even with rent control. That drives house prices up, and >that in turn drives rents up for new houses or old houses that enter the >market for the first time. >I am in favor of rent control. Without it, in a .01% vacancy rate, only the >sky is the limit of what greedy landlords may ask for rent. I'm not sure what's to blame for the situation in Toronto, but the statement that "without rent control, and .1% vacancy rate, the sky's the limit on rents" is actually the reverse of the truth. The .1% vacancy rate is *caused* by the rent control. You think there would be such a low rate in a free market? Of course not. A free market would not have two distinct classes of appartments for places that are otherwise the same in quality. Instead prices would move together. The rent controlled places, which are artificially low for the few who can get them, would go up. The currently non-controlled places would go down. The average would remain about the same, and probably drop. With a free market, a low vacancy rate is a signal to BUILD. In particular, to build for rental. Instead we have a viscious cycle. Artificial low rents in half the market drive builders to make condos and houses instead of appartments. Artificially high rents drive up consumer demand for owned real estate. Natural limits on owned real estate drive up prices. High real estate prices drive up rents. It's all very confusing, and there are more factors involved. Rent review throws everything out of balance. >The only solution I see is for the city or the province to support more co-op >housing projects, so that people who cannot afford to buy can still get decent >housing at reasonable prices outside the "free market" economy. I've never lived in a co-op housing project, but I've talked to people who have. Usually these co-op projects produce substandard housing, because there's nobody in charge that has their livelyhood at stake. There's either a committee or a bureaucrat. One hears regularly of non-profit housing with higher rents than similar privately owned housing. But at least that only hurts the people who live in the co-op project. If the project is somehow a success, and somehow produces cheap housing (usually through subsidies, it seems) then you get more artificially cheap housing which discourages private builders from entering the rental market, and all the above factors come into effect to hurt everybody. I dunno. Sometimes I think some people want us to all end up working for the state, living in state owned homes and eating state grown food. a) The project works >Evangelos E. Milios -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
eem@csri.toronto.edu (Evangelos Milios) (02/28/88)
In article <1437@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I'm not sure what's to blame for the situation in Toronto, but the statement >that "without rent control, and .1% vacancy rate, the sky's the limit on rents" >is actually the reverse of the truth. > >The .1% vacancy rate is *caused* by the rent control. >A free market would not have two distinct classes of appartments >for places that are otherwise the same in quality. >Instead prices would move together. The rent controlled places, >which are artificially low for the few who can get them, would go up. The >currently non-controlled places would go down. This is a good point, but I still insist that $1000/mo+utils for a 2bdrm apt on a family income of 32K/yr, corresponding to a family where only one spouse works, is plain too high. So the rent dictated by the free market is too high for the average person. We are talking about a market dominated by speculative fever (real estate investors) and panic (renters who can barely afford a house go out and buy one, because they may not be able to afford it next year, if the market goes up by 20% whereas their income goes up only 8% -- to buy the average house in Toronto these days you need a family income of at least $50K/yr, which is quite high). Stock markets like that are very unstable and regulatory agencies limit free market action by restricting trading. I am not sure if rent control is the right kind of restriction on free market action, but some kind of restriction is necessary, as long as demand drives rents to levels beyond the reach of the average person. Broadening the co-op housing base (which I doubt is on the average worse than my $1000/mo rent-controlled 2bdr delapidated apt) could be another possible regulatory action. Interpreting my statements as implying that everything should be state-owned is probably an overgeneralization. In the case of housing in Toronto, the demand is such that the free market, with or without rent control, fails to fulfill the basic right of the average hardworking person to decent, affordable housing. Do you disagree with this statement? If yes, why? If not, what should be done about it? ...eem -- Evangelos E. Milios Internet(UUCP,ARPANET,BITNET,CSNET): Department of Computer Science eem@ai.toronto.edu University of Toronto X.400 (CDNNET/JANET): user@ai.toronto.cdn Toronto, Canada, M5R 3C2 Obsolete addresses (just in case):
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/29/88)
In article <1988Feb28.002014.29461@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> eem@csri.toronto.edu (Evangelos Milios) writes: >In the case of housing in Toronto, the demand is such that the free >market, with or without rent control, fails to fulfill the basic right >of the average hardworking person to decent, affordable housing. >Do you disagree with this statement? If yes, why? If not, what should be >done about it? >...eem It's hard to agree or disagree with a sentence that includes the phrase "the free market, with or without rent control..." That just doesn't make sense. The whole thrust of the article I wrote was that there is no such thing as the free market with rent control. (Even without it, there are dozens of constraints on the housing market, ranging from special tax laws, zoning regulations and the LTA. All of these affect prices indirectly, but rent control is the most obvious price changer.) I'm also not sure what is meant by "the basic right to decent afordable housing." Does this include Rosedale? Certainly it would be nice, but to call it a basic right in every location goes too far. Fact is that, other than with ludicrous rent controls, some cities are going to cost more than others, and the city will always cost more than the country. Some places (like Silicon Valley, for instance) are just not going to be affordable to people in lower income groups, and you can't change it. Many factors have driven up rents. Perhaps the strongest is the arrival of the two-income couple, or the D.I.N.K. This strong, unforseen increase in the demand for quality appartments *must* drive the price up. There's nothing that can be done to stop it. It's not surprising that the D.I.N.K. movement centers in Toronto, either. What are you going to do, insist that one spouse not work? With high DINK demand for luxury appartments, homes and condos, and a large base of run-down rent controlled appartments, who's going to be idiot enough to build lower middle class dwellings? Even MURB tax breaks didn't help. To answer other points: > The price dictated by the free market is too high. As noted, the prices today don't come from a free market, but a heavily controlled one. And markets don't "dictate" prices. They arrive at them, through the aggregate of consumer demand and producer supply and profitability. Only rent control laws dictate prices. > Speculators are driving the price up. To some extent, but only because it works. Most of these speculators are ordinary people, though. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (03/01/88)
In article <1443@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Many factors have driven up rents. Perhaps the strongest is the arrival >of the two-income couple, or the D.I.N.K. This strong, unforseen >increase in the demand for quality appartments *must* drive the price up. >There's nothing that can be done to stop it. This is not correct. Increased demand only drives prices up if the supply remains static (or increases at an insufficient rate). If industry and/or government commit themselves to a large increase in the supply of housing units, then prices will remain at a reasonable level. This is basic economics, no less. >With high DINK demand for luxury appartments, homes and condos, and >a large base of run-down rent controlled appartments, who's going to be >idiot enough to build lower middle class dwellings? Even MURB tax >breaks didn't help. You're correct in saying that high DINK demand for luxury housing will result in a greater supply of such housing, perhaps at the expense of lower income housing... but ONLY if housing construction is left entirely to the free market. Industry is interested in maximizing profits, not providing affordable housing. >> The price dictated by the free market is too high. >As noted, the prices today don't come from a free market, but a heavily >controlled one. And markets don't "dictate" prices. They arrive at >them, through the aggregate of consumer demand and producer supply and >profitability. Only rent control laws dictate prices. The prices dictated by the market (free or not) are high. And the term 'dictated' is an anthropomorphism - no more. Prices set by the market are no less absolute for having been arrived by means other than legislation. Anyhow, everyone seems to agree that prices are too high - but the means of dealing with this problem are being debated. You seem to be avocating abolishing rent control. How will that prevent the prices of units now under rent control from increasing dramatically? >> Speculators are driving the price up. >To some extent, but only because it works. Most of these speculators >are ordinary people, though. Speculation doesn't work in a market with sufficient supply. Who the speculators are is irrelevant. I believe that the answer to increased prices is an increased supply of housing units, yet unfortunately, I am convinced that the 'free market' will act only to maximize profits. Because of the Dual Income family phenomenon, the most profitable housing construction in the future will be high-income level. That leaves Government housing.... and since the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens (including the fundamental need for adequate and affordable shelter), it should step in to ensure that everyone has reasonable housing. Since affordable housing is profitable (yet not as profitable as high-income housing), this won't involve a long-run drain of tax dollars... in fact, it will provide income for the government, supplementing tax dollars. And rent controls? Toronto with rent controls is much more affordable for middle class people.... if you can find a place to live. Toronto without rent controls would be much more expensive (New York is a good example). The best alternative in my opinion is Toronto with increased gov't housing. If there is sufficient moderate-income housing, rent control will not be necessary. >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John DiMarco Hard work never killed a man ... jdd@csri.toronto.edu ... but it sure has scared lots of them! {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!utcsri!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (03/01/88)
> This is a good point, but I still insist that $1000/mo+utils for a > 2bdrm apt on a family income of 32K/yr, corresponding to a family > where only one spouse works, is plain too high. So the rent dictated > by the free market is too high for the average person. So what? The average person doesn't get to live where they like, but only where they can afford to. If enough average people can't afford to live close enough to Toronto to work there, the population will decline and the rents will come down -- or else wages will rise so that more people can afford to live here. The free market can regulate city populations as well as prices. (At least, it can as long as there aren't a significant number of people who are too poor or unemployable to go where the market dictates.) In short: if rents are unaffordable in a free market, it is because many people think that living in the area in question is very desirable, and that makes it something worth making sacrifices for. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., "For want of a bit the loop was lost..." Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Steve Summit
morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (03/01/88)
In article <1988Feb26.225840.21116@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> eem@csri.toronto.edu (Evangelos Milios) writes: >Rents these days are way out of line with respect to salaries people >make. Paying at least $1000/mo + utils for a 2bdrm apt in Toronto >on a salary of 32K/yr is ridiculous. A family with children and a >non-working spouse simply cannot survive. First of all, if it's not practical, why is there a non-working spouse and children? If they can't afford children, why do they have them? Secondly, why do you think it costs $1000/mo. Don't kid yourself that it is because the landlord is greedy; some are, but most are quite reasonable. The rent is so high because they know that after x years, they will be forced into rent control; so they have to make their rents so high that they will be able to make some money under rent controls. Or do you feel that landlords should provide housing as a service to the community out of the goodness of their hearts? >True, but a new profitable place is far too expensive for the average person. >So thank God there are controlled apartments around, which are by no means >cheap, but almost within reach of the average person. What do you figure is a good price for housing? $50/mo? $100/mo? How much to you think a person should pay for housing? 1% of their salary? >I am in favor of rent control. Without it, in a .01% vacancy rate, only the >sky is the limit of what greedy landlords may ask for rent. Why do you think that there is only a .01% vacancy rate? If landlords are so greedy and making so much money, why don't they build more buildings and make more money? >The only solution I see is for the city or the province to support more co-op >housing projects, so that people who cannot afford to buy can still get decent >housing at reasonable prices outside the "free market" economy. Otherwise, >the average person is steadily being squeezed out of Toronto or forced into >a substandard quality of living, inhabiting basements or delapidated dwellings. Or why don't we just provide free housing? I'm sure that the middle class can be squeezed some more. I happen to live next to a co-op housing project. It's a really great place, they've got boats and snow mobiles, and some of the best cars you've ever seen, Cadilacs, 300zx's, RZ7's. Tell me they can't afford decent housing on their own! >Evangelos E. Milios Internet(UUCP,ARPANET,BITNET,CSNET): -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (03/01/88)
In article <1988Feb28.002014.29461@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> eem@csri.toronto.edu (Evangelos Milios) writes: >This is a good point, but I still insist that $1000/mo+utils for a >2bdrm apt on a family income of 32K/yr, corresponding to a family >where only one spouse works, is plain too high. So the rent dictated >by the free market is too high for the average person. We are talking How do you know what the price would be like in a free market? We haven't had one for so long that you can't even begin to imagine what it would be like! Try sitting down with an income property owner sometime. Then tell me how rediculous prices are. Some buildings have been under rent control so long that the rent doesn't even cover the cost of proper maintenance, let alone provide a reasonable level of return on investment. You talk about how bad property price increases are when people only get an 8% increase in salary - compare that to a 4% increase in rents. >Evangelos E. Milios Internet(UUCP,ARPANET,BITNET,CSNET): -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (03/01/88)
In article <1988Feb29.173313.13345@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes, in reply to Brad Templeton: > I believe that the answer to increased prices is an increased supply > of housing units, yet unfortunately, I am convinced that the 'free > market' will act only to maximize profits. Because of the Dual > Income family phenomenon, the most profitable housing construction > in the future will be high-income level. That leaves Government > housing.... Less than three weeks ago, the developers were complaining publically about the decrease in the market for luxury housing, and the need for "affordable housing" (which they hoped to provide). The government/developer response was to brainstorm furiously and come up with the obvious: small, single-family dwellings of the 1950s type. Do the participants in this discussion not remember this? It was prominent on the front pages of both the Star & Globby Mail... --dave (six months? six weeks!) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
pkern@csri.toronto.edu (pkern) (03/01/88)
In article <1988Feb29.203441.28146@sq.uucp> msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: > [ ... ] > >In short: if rents are unaffordable in a free market, it is because >many people think that living in the area in question is very desirable, >and that makes it something worth making sacrifices for. But is Toronto such a place?
morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (03/04/88)
In article <1988Feb29.173313.13345@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: > You seem to be avocating >abolishing rent control. How will that prevent the prices of units now >under rent control from increasing dramatically? It won't. But the whole problem stems from the fact that rent controlled housing is dramatically, and artificially, underpriced. >And rent controls? Toronto with rent controls is much more affordable for >middle class people.... if you can find a place to live. Toronto without >rent controls would be much more expensive (New York is a good example). >The best alternative in my opinion is Toronto with increased gov't housing. >If there is sufficient moderate-income housing, rent control will not be >necessary. I question the analogy with New York. True, housing is VERY expensive in N.Y., but N.Y. is a very different bird than T.O. Even in N.Y., housing is only expensive in high profile areas such as Manhattan, and this is because N.Y. is THE place for people with money to live. T.O. does not have this problem. If rent controls were removed, new rental housing would not cater to expensive tastes, because that is profitable now. What it would mean is that developers would know that they could build affordable housing where they could raise the price if economic conditions were to change. -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/04/88)
Brad Templeton presents the conventional view, which I believed until
recently, that the lack of rental accomodation is a consequence of
rent controls. Apparently this is not so. The Globe and Mail had
an article a few weeks ago (which I didn't keep, so I have no specific
reference) that said that the crunch started before rent controls
came in. I grant that all the things Brad said sound reasonable
on the surface, but if rent controls started *after* the rental
accomodation began to be scarce, then they can hardly be blamed for
the present situation, can they?
--
Martin Taylor
...uunet!{mnetor|utzoo}!dciem!mmt
mmt@zorac.arpa
Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers,
the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves
intelligence now? Obviously, it is what we can do that computers can't.jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (03/04/88)
In article <306@brambo.UUCP> morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes: >In article <1988Feb29.173313.13345@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: >> You seem to be avocating >>abolishing rent control. How will that prevent the prices of units now >>under rent control from increasing dramatically? >It won't. But the whole problem stems from the fact that rent >controlled housing is dramatically, and artificially, underpriced. The general idea of rent control IS to keep prices lower than they otherwise would be (as you put it, underpriced). Otherwise many people can't afford to live in Toronto. >>And rent controls? Toronto with rent controls is much more affordable for >>middle class people.... if you can find a place to live. Toronto without >>rent controls would be much more expensive (New York is a good example). >>The best alternative in my opinion is Toronto with increased gov't housing. >>If there is sufficient moderate-income housing, rent control will not be >>necessary. >I question the analogy with New York. True, housing is VERY expensive >in N.Y., but N.Y. is a very different bird than T.O. Even in N.Y., >housing is only expensive in high profile areas such as Manhattan, and >this is because N.Y. is THE place for people with money to live. T.O. >does not have this problem. In my New York analogy, I was thinking of Manhattan. Correction accepted. But there is a high demand for both Toronto and Manhattan housing, (for possibly different reasons). But in Manhattan, rent control doesn't exist - hence housing prices are astronomical. Toronto would be expensive as well, if there were no rent controls, because there is a high demand for Toronto housing. >If rent controls were removed, new rental housing would not cater to >expensive tastes, because that is profitable now. What it would mean >is that developers would know that they could build affordable housing >where they could raise the price if economic conditions were >to change. You mean that developers could build affordable housing, and then make it unaffordable? I hardly see this as desirable. >Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP John -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John DiMarco Hard work never killed a man ... jdd@csri.toronto.edu ... but it sure has scared lots of them! {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!utcsri!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/05/88)
In article <2680@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >Brad Templeton presents the conventional view, which I believed until >recently, that the lack of rental accomodation is a consequence of >rent controls. Apparently this is not so. The Globe and Mail had >an article a few weeks ago (which I didn't keep, so I have no specific >reference) that said that the crunch started before rent controls >came in. I grant that all the things Brad said sound reasonable >on the surface, but if rent controls started *after* the rental >accomodation began to be scarce, then they can hardly be blamed for >the present situation, can they? Indeed, there are many factors. Temporary shortages of housing are possible in any kind of market. After all, there is only so much land per square mile. (One square mile, in fact!) In a free market, land developers see a housing shortage as a financial opportunity, and they build. This takes around a year. Smart land developers see housing shortages a year in advance, but not everybody is that smart. Only if land is running out will you see a long term shortage in a free market. As land runs out, other solutions, based on technology come into play. In particular, better transportation to the 'burbs and high-rise dwellings. The point is that, in a free market, a housing shortage is a signal to build more housing. Rent control removes or reduces that signal, and makes a temporary shortage into a permanent one. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) (03/05/88)
>And rent controls? Toronto with rent controls is much more affordable for >middle class people.... if you can find a place to live. Toronto without >rent controls would be much more expensive (New York is a good example). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >The best alternative in my opinion is Toronto with increased gov't housing. >If there is sufficient moderate-income housing, rent control will not be >necessary. > >John Explain the logic underlying that conclusion. New York *has* rent control, introduced many years ago by vote-hungry politicians (getting votes was the *only* reason they implemented rent control - the year before the election the same politicians were staunchly *against* rent control). And there is *no* affordable housing in NYC. You can live in the slums (hey, only 40% of housing is uninhabitable or beyond repair in NYC) or somewhere "nice" like Manhattan, where you are lucky if you can find a 1-bedroom bachelorette for under $800-$1000. That's what rent control has done for NYC - destroyed cheap housing and proliferated high-price condos and the like. "Rent control - the best way to destroy a city after bombing" Jan Sven. -------------------------------------------------------- -"Are you, besides Neysa, perchance a virgin?" -"No." -"Well, that's over-rated anyways." ( paraphrased from 'Split Infinity', by Piers Anthony) Mind like parachute - function only when open! Jan (Jan, from Amsterdam) no-hyphen Sven Trabandt ...!{allegro,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!oscvax!jan
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/05/88)
Dogma repeated does not become fact. Brad Templeton says: >The .1% vacancy rate is *caused* by the rent control. You think there would >be such a low rate in a free market? Of course not. A free market would not >have two distinct classes of appartments for places that are otherwise the same >in quality. Instead prices would move together. The rent controlled places, >which are artificially low for the few who can get them, would go up. The >currently non-controlled places would go down. and >I've never lived in a co-op housing project, but I've talked to people who >have. Usually these co-op projects produce substandard housing, because >there's nobody in charge that has their livelyhood at stake. There's either >a committee or a bureaucrat. One hears regularly of non-profit housing with >higher rents than similar privately owned housing. Since the remakably low vacancy rates *preceded* rent control, according to the Globa and mail article I previously mentioned, Brad has a strange kind of causality (Prigogine would be quite interested). As for the second point, one reason that coops tend to have higher than normal standards is that the tenants are required to take part in committees for the different functions, and thus have a stake in the place. I don't know where Brad's information comes from, but I am sure we can come up with examples of good coop places and bad, and well we know the horror stories of apartments controlled by landlords with a profit motive. The free market isn't all-powerful, and I have more than a suspicion that it can work at all only in a resource-rich country that can afford the inevitable inefficiencies and chicanery that the free market involves. An optimum system surely must embody both freedom and responsibility or control. -- Martin Taylor ...uunet!{mnetor|utzoo}!dciem!mmt mmt@zorac.arpa Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers, the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves intelligence now? Obviously, it is what we can do that computers can't.
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (03/07/88)
I'm sorry - New York was a bad example. I request permission to take
my foot out of my mouth.
(at least I keep my feet clean that way!)
John
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John DiMarco Hard work never killed a man ...
jdd@csri.toronto.edu ... but it sure has scared lots of them!
{uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!utcsri!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/11/88)
A retraction:
I took Brad to task on the causal relation between rent review and
the lack of affordable rental accomodation, because of something that
was in the Globa and Mail which said that the crunch came before
rent controls. A letter in todays G+M points out that rent controls
were discussed for some long time before they were implemented, and
that the dsicussion and probable implementation of controls could
have had the same kind of effect as the controls themselves. I think
this point is correct, so although I still disagree with Brad's analysis,
at least it is not ruled out by the facts so far presented.
--
Martin Taylor
...uunet!{mnetor|utzoo}!dciem!mmt
mmt@zorac.arpa
Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers,
the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves
intelligence now? Obviously, it is what we can do that computers can't.