A guy in LA
MayorSam contributor Walter Moore called the week-long debate I am having with Urbanist Professor Peter Dreier "fake" this morning. I can assure you that it has been anything but.
In particular, Walter characterizes the two of us as proponents of rent control. As for the Perfesser's side, I won't argue the point, because he is indeed a proponent. And I can't help it, Walter, if Peter seizes every opportunity possible to wear all the organizations he flacks for like the decals on a NASCAR racing suit. No, I won't answer for him.
But as for me, I'm not at all fussy for either rent control or rent stabilization, and I say so again and again. It was not a good characterization of the debate to say there was no "con" side. I took the "con" side.
In fact, if you drilled down further into my own piece, you'd find I indeed made the following comments about rent control:
As a longtime contributor to MayorSam, I think it's been great for the City to be able to read almost daily the exceptionally contrarian take on economic issues that Walter Moore provides. But I don't think it's helpful to the city, to me, to this site, or even to Walter himself to call a debate on political an economic issues "fake" just because neither participant happens to agree perfectly with Walter on one particular issue.
*Update: The Times says, "no second round." It was too hot! But if the Professor agrees, we'll publish the heated second round today at either MartiniRepublic, or right here, wherever the Prof prefers.
In particular, Walter characterizes the two of us as proponents of rent control. As for the Perfesser's side, I won't argue the point, because he is indeed a proponent. And I can't help it, Walter, if Peter seizes every opportunity possible to wear all the organizations he flacks for like the decals on a NASCAR racing suit. No, I won't answer for him.But as for me, I'm not at all fussy for either rent control or rent stabilization, and I say so again and again. It was not a good characterization of the debate to say there was no "con" side. I took the "con" side.
In fact, if you drilled down further into my own piece, you'd find I indeed made the following comments about rent control:
Wherever there are disproportionate numbers of renters to owner-occupied homes, as there are in the City of Los Angeles and in Santa Monica, the renters typically have an undue amount of leverage, and they can use it to their city's disadvantage.Walter, follow up with my response to the Perfesser today, mostly about homelessness, which just about caused Peter to blow a gasket, and provoked a second round of debate that the Times editors have graciously extended to us*. And even the Mayor himself got in on the action today.
[snip]
We now have extremely high apartment occupancy rates in Los Angeles County, and of course in the city, the kind of occupancy rates that puts pressure on rents to keep rising in perpetuity. Rent control is to blame for that.
[snip]
All this is why, when I see the Mayor and Eric Garcetti and their attending phalanxes of big-money developers say that "growth is inevitable in Los Angeles" when they're promoting their affordable housing solutions, I think: "Well, if you think growth is inevitable, then do something about it! Free up the market a bit, to bring us more and more better units, and roll back the paralyzing rent controls!"
As a longtime contributor to MayorSam, I think it's been great for the City to be able to read almost daily the exceptionally contrarian take on economic issues that Walter Moore provides. But I don't think it's helpful to the city, to me, to this site, or even to Walter himself to call a debate on political an economic issues "fake" just because neither participant happens to agree perfectly with Walter on one particular issue.
*Update: The Times says, "no second round." It was too hot! But if the Professor agrees, we'll publish the heated second round today at either MartiniRepublic, or right here, wherever the Prof prefers.
Labels: a guy in la
Posted by Joseph F. Mailander @ 4/12/2007 11:34:00 AM
6 Comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong Joseph, but you basically feel that rent control can be used for good, right? And that, in moderation, it helps make housing more affordable, fair, promotes the economy etc., and that the real problem is that it's been carried too far here in L.A.?
If that is a fair approximation of your position, then the debate strikes me as rigged from the start.
Did either of you take the position -- which any economist will -- that rent control is always bad? No. Did either of you argue that it's immoral because it takes away rights from the property owner without just compensation? No.
And it's not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing with me. Rather, it's a matter of whether there's any meaningful disagreement between the participants. The two of you don't really disagree on whether the underlying policy is wrong; you're just quibbling over price, right?
The mayor says: "Neighborhoods must embrace the placement of affordable housing and service centers throughout the city."
OK. Then place the so-called "affordable housing" and "service centers" in Arnold's neighborhood; best right next door to him, and see how he and other fat cat elites react.
P.S. I do not fault Joseph himself at all for the nature of the "debate." Nor do I consider him a "fake." Au contraire, I read the Martini Republic like clockwork because I respect his opinion even if I disagree with it.
Re 1:46: Exactly. The "affordable housing" developers and politicians who cater to them always want "affordable housing" in YOUR neighborhood, not theirs!
Correct me if I'm wrong Joseph...
I already did.
Rent control is bad for a community. I've been a commercial real estate broker for over 20 years in LA. I've bought, sold, owned rent control and non-rent control buildings. I had to help sweet old landlords sell their rent control buildings in West Hollywood and Santa Monica because they couldn't even break even, and their loans were paid off! Sweet old ladies had to sell their properties and go live in a cheap apartment, in which they had to pay market rent.
The tenants in those buildings were generally middle class people who did not need subsidized rent. Instead of paying rent, they used that money to have fancy cars and such. That did not help the community at all.
I've seen people let their buildings go into disrepair because they can't afford to maintain them anymore. I think it's completely unfair to make hardworking people who saved and invested their money pay the rent of middle class people who don't even need the help.
What was even more unfair was the fact that they make the landlords paint every three years, new carpet every five years, or sooner if needed. The tenant can trash the place and the landlord must pay to fix it instead of the other way around. The tenants end up "owning" the building and the landlord. That is not fair.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home