I rent. But conversely, I dont believe the gov't should regulate rental prices via rent control. It's a perverse incentive. If the gov't wants cheaper units, build cheaper units themselves. Virtually confiscating property from owners is not the way. If I had money to own or build, I certainly would be disincentivized to build if I knew those properties could become rent controlled. I really don't understand the reasoning of rent control beyond knee jerk reaction.
Now. I live in SF but I don't believe it's my "right" to live here, so long as there were affordable units within commuting distances. By affordable I mean enough units at different income levels. But gov't needs to encourage building, not stifle building, which seems they work very hard at.
> If I had money to own or build, I certainly would be disincentivized to build if I knew those properties could become rent controlled.
You live in SF, so you know that new construction will not be covered under rent control laws. [0] Why would you say this?
> But gov't needs to encourage building, not stifle building, which seems they work very hard at.
Agreed.
If the city government removes the anti-development zoning laws in much of the city and works to placate the rabid anti-development leaders in both the "DON'T SPOIL MY VIEW!" and "NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ALWAYS RENT CONTROLLED UNIT DESTRUCTION AND YOU SHALL NEVER DESTROY A SINGLE RENT CONTROLLED UNIT!" camps, and there is still barely any new construction, then perhaps it will be time to see why a law that controls rent only in buildings constructed prior to 1970-mumble is stifling construction of new buildings in 2015.
[0] Except in special cases like the Trinity Towers project. In that case, Sangiacomo got permission to destroy a building full of rent controlled units if he replaced each of those units with a rent controlled one in the new building. This was a 1:1 replacement. No rent controlled units were lost, no additional rent controlled units were created, and Sangiacomo got a new building full of "market rate" units in the bargain.
Yes and no. People have the right to do it in the abstract, but the Commerce Clause embodies the principle that you can't discriminate against other Americans. Housing protectionism comes pretty close to doing that.
I'd rather not talk about "rights," but how about preferences? I would certainly prefer that "the people (through the government)" did not have the ability to apply price controls to the market.
reply