Here’s an anti rent control argument I haven’t heard (this applies to stricter rent control regimes like NYC, SF - not sure about this new OR law). Getting a spot in a rent-controlled apartment is a valuable, non-transferable asset. If you buy a house and it gains $100,000 in equity, you can sell it and buy a bigger house, sell it and cash out while getting a smaller house, borrow against it. With a rent-control asset, you can’t do any of those things, so you have fewer options, but if you move, you just forfeit the asset. That’s a big economic drag.
I wonder how many rent-controlled residents in SF/NYC would accept a $100k buyout that would convert the apt to market rate. Has anyone seen a study of the spreads between market/rent-controlled, by city/zip/census tract? I’d love to see that.
I wonder how many rent-controlled residents in SF/NYC would accept a $100k buyout that would convert the apt to market rate. Has anyone seen a study of the spreads between market/rent-controlled, by city/zip/census tract? I’d love to see that.