ManhattanRailfan t1_j7i4wg0 wrote
Reply to comment by bsbbtnh in Federal court upholds NY rent stabilization laws, setting up possible Supreme Court showdown by ER301
NAHB? This is like citing a study by BP to say that climate change isn't real. Of course the parasites that are collecting rent aren't going to want rent control.
Also the problem with this case study is two-fold. 1, Costa-Hawkins passed in 1995, right when cities all over the US were going into a growth period with massive amounts of investment and construction. In fact, more housing was built in 1990, 91, and 92 than. In 1995 or 1996. 2. Clearly, it hasn't solved the housing affordability crisis because SF remains the first or second most expensive city in the country, and the rest of the Bay Area isn't much better.
The primary factors behind a lack of construction in NYC are zoning, NIMBYs, and high upfront costs. The idea that rent regulation is even a factor, especially in as-of-right construction with no mandatory inclusionary housing, is quite frankly, asinine.
bsbbtnh t1_j7muohr wrote
Presumably you have some studies which say rent control doesn't have an impact on new construction?
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7mwg3r wrote
And an article for slightly easier comprehension.
In fact, the only articles that I could find that claim rent control decreases construction were published by developers and parasites landlords themselves. Not exactly an unbiased source. And basically all of them cite that single Bay Area case study that you did. And case studies aren't good evidence of a trend or causation. Only that something is a possibility.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments