Rent control in California isn't particularly protective of spiraling rents. The statewide law applies to 15+ year old units and per year rent increases are limited to 5% plus inflation or 10%, whichever is lower.
I’d guess that the vast majority of California renters are in big cities, where 3% rent control is typical. You get stuck after a year or two, unable to move without leaving the state, and landlords exploit this by neglecting repairs (i.e. lead, mold, asbestos). There is a pretty big range of “livable conditions” which I’ve experienced as a renter. So the divide between rich and poor (owner and renter) increases and the only socially acceptable solution it seems is yimbism, which seems to mean “increase the number of landlords until the problem disappears.” Or outright communism, where the state is the landlord, which has a history of failure.
Rent control in California isn't particularly protective of spiraling rents. The statewide law applies to 15+ year old units and per year rent increases are limited to 5% plus inflation or 10%, whichever is lower.
The statewide number is simply a maximum not a statewide standard.
In San Francisco, rent in rent-controlled apartments can only be raised by 2.6% per year. Which is far more impactful.
I’d guess that the vast majority of California renters are in big cities, where 3% rent control is typical. You get stuck after a year or two, unable to move without leaving the state, and landlords exploit this by neglecting repairs (i.e. lead, mold, asbestos). There is a pretty big range of “livable conditions” which I’ve experienced as a renter. So the divide between rich and poor (owner and renter) increases and the only socially acceptable solution it seems is yimbism, which seems to mean “increase the number of landlords until the problem disappears.” Or outright communism, where the state is the landlord, which has a history of failure.
5 replies →