Jackson calls for return of rent control

By adamg on Fri, 07/28/2017 - 10:33am

The Jamaica Plain Gazette reports on forums JP Progressives held for the two main candidates for mayor this year.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Ad:

Comments

However

By anon²
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 9:36pm

As recently as 05-12 prices were rising reasonably in the city as a whole and then stayed flat during the recession.

The housing crisis now is a direct result of demand increases every year since the 2000s, yet a decade where very little was built during the credit crunch. We're still trying to catch up.

Plus there isn't anything wrong with luxury. It keeps prices down on old housing stock and small landlord rentals, if new units are meeting demand.

Otherwise those luxury buyers are just going to gut triple deckers. Worse, if there's a huge supply imbalance, they turn multi family dwellings back into large single families (as is happening in some other cities).

You want to talk about devastation to the middle class / poor? Turning 3 units into 1 is about as bad as you can get in a city that already is strapped for housing.

Luxury housing doesn't helpthe people that need housing the most

By cinnamngrl
Sun, 07/30/2017 - 10:35am

It is not keeping prices down on existing housing stock and older buildings. Nobody can find section 8 housing for their families in Boston anymore.

This is more of the fake trickle down economics. The fantasy that rich people buying apartments and high profit in the housing industry is helping the community.

Building small efficient units for entry-level workers and families might not bring a high profit margin but they would definitely pay for themselves in this market. It is wrong for the city to not take some kind of control over the situation.

No… it really doesn't

By Jeff B
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 2:49pm

Rent control one of the primary reasons why San Francisco is entering a new age of haves and have nots — at some point I heard it thrown around that only 6% is at market rate.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”4 That cities like New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent control is due to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the years.5 Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent control for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old rent control. Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City housing market is not in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized units, but in condominiums and cooperative housing. But these two forms of housing ownership grew important as a way of getting around rent control.

Also interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/magazine/how-ho...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budg...

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2...

I calibrate the [spatial] model to the U.S. economy and find that the rise in regulation accounts for 23% of the increase in wage dispersion and 85% of the increase in house price dispersion across metro areas from 1980 to 2007. I find that if regulation had not increased, more workers would live in productive areas and output would be 2% higher. I also show that policy interventions that weaken incentives of local governments to restrict supply could reduce wage and house price dispersion, and boost productivity.

Rent control isn’t the solution, and MA was wise to outlaw it. Politicians trying to bring it back don’t know what they are talking about (as with many economic issues that sound good on paper but are awful in practice)

Transit expansion is a pretty

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 12:52pm

Transit expansion is a pretty vital component of bringing costs under control, too - both because it makes new opportunities for high density TOD and because it spreads the current demand over a wider area.

Unfortunately that's even harder than getting more housing built near existing transit so....

This is absolutely right

By alkali
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 1:59pm

If we had more reliable high quality transit people would have more housing alternatives. As it is we haven't had any new T construction since 1987 when the southern part of the Orange Line was rebuilt.

Assembly Square Station and

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 3:32pm

Assembly Square Station and the Silver Line in its entirety disagree with you.

Assembly Square isn't an expansion

By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 8:16pm

That is an infill station. Big difference.

GLX is an expansion.

The Sliver Lie cannot be

By anon
Sat, 07/29/2017 - 4:08pm

The Sliver Lie cannot be called T expansion It's a bus that runs in traffic with the exception of a small number of right-of-ways/tunnels. False comparison.

Yup.

By anon²
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 6:04pm

Imagine a high speed rail with stops in Framingham and Worcester. Not only would it transform this cities, it would bolster the regional economy in and between as people could freely flow between economic hubs in 30-60 min.

A housing problem? Maybe. A transpo problem? Definitely.

By issacg
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 2:12pm

I can't believe it took this long for someone to raise this.

If we had a real train system that could bring you from Brockton to Boston in 20 mins (and at a reasonable cost), as such a system would in other developed countries, our Boston-area housing problem would be significantly mitigated. It would also have the nice effect of greatly uplifting Brockton, lessening the need for public support there, which could free up more money for greater transpo investment, etc.

Brockton is only one (prime) example. This goes for any number of communities in eastern Massachusetts. Hell, if the trains from Worcester, Fitchburg and Leominster took 40 minutes or less (again, as it would in other developed countries) we could include central Massachusetts, too.

NSRL

By blues_lead
Sun, 07/30/2017 - 1:35pm

Expansion AND intensification, i.e. using the infrastructure we have more intensely, specifically the commuter rail. There's a huge push right now for the North-South Rail Link to be built, which will allow the commuter lines to run much more frequently - every 20 minutes or so. This makes the commuter rail much more useful to many more people, both in flexibility of use and in ability to get a seat/standing spot in the more crowded trains.

Preserving some neighborhoods not always NIMBY

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 10:29pm

Some people keep talking as if accepting some arbitrary number of new residents is a mandate. There mere existence of lower density areas in a city is not automatically NIMBY. It's already extremely dense compared to many others.

You are preserving something fake

By cinnamngrl
Mon, 07/31/2017 - 11:16am

The current low density of the neighborhoods it is the result of a temporary reduction in the population of the city. When thosehouses were built families were much bigger and they were servants living in the attic.

The city needs to invest in helping people that need help, not help middle class families "preserve" a wealthy lifestyle.

As long as we're getting rent

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 11:34am

As long as we're getting rent control back, can we get blue laws too?

Once I got used to absolutely everything being closed on Sundays, it was kinda nice.

Why on earth would you want

By Kinopio
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 12:27pm

Why on earth would you want things to be closed on sundays? This isn't the 1800s or rural Alabama(same difference). People around here don't go to church.

"People around here don't go

By Patricia-can't ...
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 12:51pm

"People around here don't go to church."

What? You post crazy but today is gold!

Bigger issue

By EM Painter
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 2:44pm

Why can't you log in? WON'T log in is more like it.

Of course people around here

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 3:52pm

Of course people around here go to church on Sunday. It's just that service starts with a coin toss at 1pm on channel 5.

Because local retail on its

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 12:52pm

Because local retail on its deathbed really needs that pillow over its face.

We can't have rent control

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 2:47pm

We can't have rent control because the voters in a referendum said so and that's the la oh wait ... shit.

What if there was a maximum sq ft?

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 3:12pm

I'm wondering aloud about ways to get more moderate housing. Not 40B. Not luxury. Stuff in between.

What if there was a requirement on size? I don't know if it's something like max 1400 sq ft total, or BRs capped at 140 sq ft, or caps on number of showers (nobody's building a 1 shower luxury apartment, for example)?

I'm wondering if there are ways to just get more units that add to the supply of moderate priced housing (for the region).

40B won't help with that. Rent control won't really help either (IMO). We need more housing stock that is sized for typical families -- both number of BRs and price. How do we get that?

Tha'ts just relying on adding more housing

By anon
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 10:31pm

The fact is that have affordability restricted housing does provide places to live for a wider number of people.

I agree with the Mayor, it is

By The first anon,...
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 4:38pm

I agree with the Mayor, it is about supply and demand. We need more unit of every type across the city and region. When he spoke about young people occupying houses he most likely was talking about either ONE or TWO young people making a lot of money living in a whole house by themselves or a large group all splitting the rent. Don't tell me it does not happen, I know people who occupy a whole home by themselves because there were no condo's available at a decent price so they bought a home and fixed it up. In regards to 5 young people each renting a bedroom, they can easily each put up almost 1k a piece in many cases and that just becomes insane amounts of money a small family can not keep up with.

The problem with rent control and affordable housing is you are picking winners and losers. Telling people where they can and can't live. With rent control you can stop me from buying a triple decker and filling it with my family which is what set a lot of people off. Especially people from Boston because that is how we used to use triple deckers. We need to build as many units as we can and that will help drive down prices. Especially micro lofts in the center of the city where young people want to live.

I've always hated lottery systems for things, it takes decisions out of your hands. It also is admitting defeat instead of fixing the problem.

When it comes to these investment apartments. I'd like to see how many of these exist in Boston and how much they are altering the market. Is this akin to the boogy man that Republicans created around the "Welfare Queen" of the 80's? Ohhhhh look she is taking all your money, when in reality she represented a very small number of people. In the absence of a study I feel this may be the same "ohhhh Boston watch out, those rich Chinese people are buying you homes and to add insult to injury they don't even live in them!!!" I would be shocked if it happened often enough to move the bar. If it were a problem why not suggest legislation, I think a City Councillor could do this, that limits zoning to only allow housing that will be occupied over 50 percent of the time by a full time resident?

Yep, I fixed up a place that

By anon
Sat, 07/29/2017 - 2:35am

Yep, I fixed up a place that needed a lot of care. Like loose asbestos tiles over dirt floors a lot. Even after the money the repairs have soaked up, because of the timing, it was cheaper to buy and renovate a big empty house than to buy a move-in ready condo a third the size. And don't get me started on condo fees.

But I didn't go through reno hell just for funzies. It's so that eventually the basement unit (now Universal Design and wheelchair-friendly) can be my mother's retirement apartment, and in the meantime, the rental income takes some of the sting out of all those repair costs.

If my mom has a stroke or other long-term care needs, I'm moving her in as soon as the tenant's lease is up. If renting it out at any point means I can't get it back without a long expensive legal fight, the rental income just isn't worth it, and that unit drops from the market. Not exactly good for supply to scare landlords out of the business entirely.

Investment apartments are a growing trend

By Breadsticks
Fri, 07/28/2017 - 10:33pm

Some people are insistent in suggesting that it's not a factor, but it's widely regarded as a growing trend in the region, and it does displace local people who are integrated into the region.

More housing in some places helps, but so does requiring that some units be affordable. Hoping that more housing everywhere makes it affordable is not realistic, and doesn't really make for the most desirable region either. It does add to profit margins though.