News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 631     0 

New Rent Controls?

Article today in the Star about it.

Toronto Start Article-New rent rules proposed

Some quotes:

"Yesterday, the Liberals introduced legislation that removes many of the landlord-friendly measures the last Progressive Conservative government introduced, but does not bring back all the tenant-friendly NDP measures of the past. "

"There was a collective sigh of relief among landlords that the Liberals didn't bring back old-style rent controls, but the increased restrictions on their ability to raise rents to pay for building improvements will still deter investment, said Vince Brescia, president of the Federation of Rental Housing Providers. If investors decide they can't make enough money in apartments, they'll take their money elsewhere and that means new apartments won't be built and old ones won't be repaired and upgraded. "
 
It's not like there are lots of rental apartment units built even with the almost non-existent rent control during the Harris years anyways.

There should be more of a policy focus on other housing types, like Co-ops, which have more or less dropped off the radar screen completely.

AoD
 
^^Interesting point about co-ops.

Not sure of the current state of the co-ops in the St Lawrence (an exemplary model for co-ops), but a while back I read in the St Lawrence Community Bulletin an article/commentary, that the fear was that with changed legislation in regards to co-ops, the co-ops would become ghetto-ized and neglected, and new developers would eventually come in and build higher income housing on the land, pushing the low income housing out.
 
History shows that rent control just doesn't work. Controling housing is like controling trade it just creates artificial levels that correct themselves explosively instead of gradually. The Liberals side-stepped any significant changes to the Harris legislation because it worked so well, one of the few things the Harris PC's did right (their legislation was more pro-tenant then existing legislation in most other provinces such as BC and Alberta). The strong rise in rents over the period was caused by sharp increases in rental units where prices were suppressed, an imbalance caused during the NDP days. Rents on units already at market value have been going up at a rate below inflation over the last few years. Also taking into consideration incentives like inclusive parking whre once people had to rent spaces this meaning in real terms rents have actually been falling. The overall slow down in rental rate increases over the last few years is a reflection of the fact that more units are now at market levels. Market level rents are stagnant and vacancy rates are high making it tough even for politicians trying to buy votes among tenants to rationalize draconian rent controls.
 
They worked just fine for me and several of my friends when we were renting, in various modern highrises around town, in the 1970's and 1980's.

When I moved to 70 Cambridge in 1981 I was paying about $280 / month for a small apartment, and when I moved out in 1990 I was paying about $440 / month. And that was in an era of high inflation. I think I probably kept ahead of the CPI.
 
It's not like there are lots of rental apartment units built even with the almost non-existent rent control during the Harris years anyways.

There should be more of a policy focus on other housing types, like Co-ops, which have more or less dropped off the radar screen completely.

Your're absolutely right. Part of the propaganda for removing all forms of rent control was that it would stimulate the building of new units. That never really happened. The only notable exception was the growth in the high-end rentals market.

As for co-ops, there are some people who are actually forgetting that this type of housing serves an important purpose. There is no talk of the need for diverse housing options. Instead, there is just a prevalent assumption that the market will take care of everything... for a price.
 
"Part of the propaganda for removing all forms of rent control was that it would stimulate the building of new units. That never really happened. The only notable exception was the growth in the high-end rentals market"

Over the entire history of human civilization have there been more then a few periods where new constructions purpose built for middle and low income renters have been built? Rental stock is naturally high end on construction and over time becomes middle and low. I know that sounds bad but that is how things work and if there is a continous supply of high end rental being built then there will be plenty of middle and low end rental coming on stock year after year. The problem for low end renters is that housing is too affordable so developers are only interested in the more lucrative condo market and rental conditions are too negative for owners to justify adding many units. It is actually the lack of even high end rental being constructed that bodes poorly for the future number of lower end rental units.
 
^^ In full agreement with you. Most economists would agree as well.
 
Over the entire history of human civilization have there been more then a few periods where new constructions purpose built for middle and low income renters have been built?

Well, that's quite the survey question. I had no idea you had such a broad ranging history within your grasp. The point here is that there has been construction for middle and low income renters. This is a distictly contemporary development, one which does not require a survey of human civilization. One need look only to the last 200 years or so.

There is nothing in the rules of nature, human interaction or economics that prevent the construction of a diverse housing base for low income earners. The only thing stopping this activity is excuses, such as:

Most economists would agree as well.

Really, who gives a shit what economists alone would have to say about the needs of low-income earners? Your own assertions answers the limitations of your agreement: one would have to presume that "some" economists don't see things in the same way.
 
Bizorksky, let me get this straight.. Are you saying you don't believe in rent control? ;)

Sure, some economists would argue otherwise, but most won't. Some people also believe that OJ is innocent or that the world is flat, but most don't.

A whole lot of them moreso argue the fact that it actually worsens the situation.

I don't suppose I'd be able to convince you, but economic study after economic study show otherwise. These are just two articles I quickly found, but there are many more sources which say the same thing.

How Rent Control Drives Out
Affordable Housing


Rent Control
Economists are virtually unanimous in the conclusion that rent controls are destructive

Really, who gives a shit what economists alone would have to say about the needs of low-income earners?

Absolutely, econmists alone are not the only ones to have authority of opinion on this, that is why I do respect your opinion too.
 
Sure, some economists would argue otherwise, but most won't. Some people also believe that OJ is innocent or that the world is flat, but most don't

Ah, I see, the "argument from authority." You hold economists to be authorities on rent control, and so anyone who doubts them must be an idiot.

That's not a particularly reasonable approach is it?

Since when does economics speak to the value of housing beyond market forces? Does economics speak of the impact on individuals? As I await my condo to be built I live in a rental building. Two people have moved out because the rents have become too high. They could no longer afford what they could not control. Sounds like a worsening situation for them, don't you think? Or maybe as the true believer of the spoken word of the dismal science, you can't see the trees for the forest and forget that this always affects human beings.
 
Ah, I see, the "argument from authority." You hold economists to be authorities on rent control, and so anyone who doubts them must be an idiot.

Did I say anyone who doubts them is an idiot? I said they are a very small minority of econmists who believe rent control works. Your arguement said that SOME economists do not believe it and you did not disagree that most do not. I countered your point by providing examples of minority opinions. I never said anything about idiocity.

Rent control is an economic policy. That is why economists have an authority over the issue of whether rent control works. I never said that what they say is gospel or that they should have the final say, I merely said that they have an authority over the subject matter. Just like architects have an authority over architecture, but yet there is still room for interpretations and outside opinion.

Further, did you miss that I said this:

Absolutely, econmists alone are not the only ones to have authority of opinion on this, that is why I do respect your opinion too.

How much more clearer can I acknowledge that anyone who doubts them are not idiots?

And what is your arguement counter to mine? You believe rent control works because you discount economists and two people in your building moved out because they can't afford it? The same situation can occur if there is rent control. So?

Despite the fact that I disagree, I do respect the opinion because I understand there are different socio-ecomonic perspectives on the issue and rent control can be viewed upon as a social policy as well, and I never argued against that.

It appears you do not respect my opinion, and that is fine.

But because I do not believe in rent control it does not make me oblivious or unqualified to the human factors of low income issues.
 
Here's what you posted:

Sure, some economists would argue otherwise, but most won't. Some people also believe that OJ is innocent or that the world is flat, but most don't.

You are inferring by attempting to make comparisons to unrealted topics. In other words, if you don't believe in what economists have to say about the negative impact of rent control, then one as is silly as someone who believes the earth is flat. You can see that, can't you?

Rent control is more than a economic policy. If you would bother to read up on its establishment, rent control as a policy addresses quality of life issues that are not reducible to pure economics. The economy and economics ought to exist to serve people, not people serve the economy. The economy is not a force of nature, but a construct - an invention - of human beings. It is a system to expedite relations.

As for economists being "authorities" on rent control, that is - pardon my language - bullshit. Economists may be experts when it comes to their particular field, but they are not "authorities." There are wide-ranging debates and disputes on all sorts of issues within the field of economics. It is hardly the ground of complete agreement. Maybe this is why there are such furious debates over the economic mechanisms of rent control.
 
You are inferring by attempting to make comparisons to unrealted topics. In other words, if you don't believe in what economists have to say about the negative impact of rent control, then one as is silly as someone who believes the earth is flat. You can see that, can't you?

It is an analogy. If an economist believes counter to the majority thought, he/she is going against a majority in their field of thought. Much like the above stated examples. Examples were given to illustrate yes perhaps were extreme, but that is the nature of bringing forth a polarized point.

Rent control is more than a economic policy.

Hm, didn't I already say this?

Despite the fact that I disagree, I do respect the opinion because I understand there are different socio-ecomonic perspectives on the issue and rent control can be viewed upon as a social policy as well, and I never argued against that.

Maybe this is why there are such furious debates over the economic mechanisms of rent control.

The furious debates amongst economists you allude to :

www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing." Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand.

The furious debate exists with economists vs others, say perhaps sociolgoists, to which I have already stated numerous times that I hold their position in respect and I understand that they bring a different perspective.
 

Back
Top