Don't Just Do Something… Sit There!
From today's Wall Street Journal editorial (reg. required):
Unless new legislation is passed and signed by Monday, New York's World War II-era rent-control laws will simply expire. As any economist can tell you, that would mean a tremendous boom, ending a system that subsidizes the affluent while inflicting a perennial housing shortage on those lower down the economic ladder. Alas, it looks as though asking Governor Pataki to do nothing might be asking too much.
The problem, of course, is that the "boom" takes a while to manifest itself. Even in Manhattan, the supply of housing takes a while to adjust to the real demand level. Therefore extending rent control is always going to be more politically palatable: current tenants would be outraged if it expired, even if their kids (or, if they're young, their future selves) would benefit. Perversely, the more distortionary (and, therefore, the more destructive in the long term) the regulation is, the greater the short-term hit when it's repealed. So the worse the policy is, the harder it is to get rid of.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
WRONG. Rent control protects us from landlords. Everyone knows that.
I'm just going to assume that the above comment is a joke. That way I can maintain my sanity.
Sigh... I just can't wait for the day when politicians impose price controls on bread and milk, and then, when we're all standing in Soviet-style bread lines, blame free-market greed.
Want to kill all rent control schemes? Require the agency imposing the controls to pay the landlord the difference between the controlled price and the free market rent. If low rents benefit the public, then the burden should be borne by that public.
Reasonable from a legal perspective if you're looking at it as a partial taking. Problem is that you wouldn't have any way of gauging the real market price if rent control were widespread and had been around for a little while.
They should just get rid of the rent controlled areas block by block. The non-rent controlled areas would have to keep their prices somewhat in line with the rent controlled apartments due to the competition. As more blocks are freed from rent control, the declining stock of price controlled competition would allow the freed areas to slowly line up with the market price even as the market price declines from the building boom. Is that too politically poisonous to even suggest?
JDM, that's not politically poisonous, that's a sure fire way for politicians to line their pockets another way. "Want to go free-market? Pay Me!"
Nonetheless, in the end it would be a better solution than perpetual rent control - "What to raise your rent? Pay me."
JDM,
As the apartments were deregulated block by block, they would instantly draw market rents - there wouldn't be any catch up period to market because there is such a demand for apartments (especially in Manhattan)
The building shortage in NYC has a lot more to do with the sky high building costs and legal/political/regulatory barriers to building than by the rent controls, and probably wouldn't affected too much by the mere repeal of the rent regulations. There might be a boom if they ever straightened up the building code and permitting processes here, but that's another story altogether..
Wasn't it the Wall Street Journal the same paper that wanted to increase the payroll tax, and the like on the poor?
yes Croesus, the WSJ is wrong on that issue so it is wrong on all issues. thanks for the intellegent insights!
I normally think those who critique other's spelling rather than content are A-holes, but one should always spell check before kritisizing someones intellegence...and post anonymously...
As I understand NYC rent control, it does not impede construction of new buildings to any great degree. If you open a new building, you are free to charge whatever rent you want - you just can't raise rents with the market until tenants move out of their apartments. So, if you've lived in the same apartment for several years, you won't be able to afford to move to another similar apartment. At least I think this is how it works.
RE: "Sigh ... I just can't wait for the day when politicians impose price controls on bread and milk."
Hey, sigher, where have you been living? In a cave? Why do you suppose the price of milk is what it is today, hmm?
Unless you meant that sarcastically, please do your homework:
http://reason.com/9807/ci.bt.milk.shtml
Or, better yet, go here:
http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts0.pl?index=87281
and type (with the quotes):
"milk prices"
You'll get a better insight into what the command-and-control freaks have done to our products and your money.
Rent control is stagnation. I don't know where some people come off believing they have a right to live in an area just because they are special. If the general public could live exactly where they wanted to, nobody would live in Cleveland.
You are correct, PLC. Rent control does not impede the construction of new units. This "boom" of which the posters speak refers to the "boom" in luxury renovated units that will displace the tenants and replace the existing rent-controlled units. New construction is hindered far more by zoning laws, environmental-impact studies, and other regulations than it ever was by rent control
The insidiousness of NYC's rent-control laws is that they make it very difficult to do condo conversions, which is why co-op buildings are so much more common in Manhattan than condominiums are.
Hmm, I don't know why the kind of rule you describe wouldn't impede the construction of new units. The decision to build isn't based on the rent you expect you can get tomorrow, after all, but on the full anticipated future income stream. So I can imagine a case where expected future growth of the rental market would raise rents to a level worth building for, but the inability to raise rents to match makes it not worthwhile, since you can't fill the units at that higher level for several years to come.
A subsidy is not a price control. Totally different economic effects.
You people need to watch more westerns; when the Commanches shoot you with an arrow, you can't just grab it and rip it out and expect everything to be ok. The end of rent control needs to be planned for and phased, and (to avoid the massive displacement of working class people), needs to happen along with a number of other reforms in zoning and building codes, to allow the necessary increase in housing units to occur. Otherwise, the shock to system will have disasterous results.
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.TRY-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET
DATE: 12/10/2003 11:56:06
An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://free-penis-enlargement-technique.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/21/2003 02:07:09
Interesting site, is all true ?
EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
IP: 212.253.2.205
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 08:31:22
There are as many translators as there are humans.