This would be an unproductive use of time. It is very clear you are pro "no regulation" around housing (based on your thread comments, "just build more"), so a heated argument with the potential for the subthread to be detached by dang does none of us any good. I'm not here to change your belief system, and to attempt to do so would provide no meaningful impact to macro outcomes.
All I'm asking you to do is list the specific laws or regulation you're referring to here when you write about the need to "protect renters". I don't know if we agree or disagree, because you haven't actually stated what your beliefs are.
I definitely support regulations around housing: housind needs to be safe (fire exits, sprinklers, etc.). Landlords can't engage in deceptive practices, like putting up ads for one unit and giving the tenant a different one. Units should be promptly repaired. Landlords shouldn't discriminate on the basis of protected class. I could go on.
Dynamic price control of rents to prevent them from accelerating beyond what wages can support (existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants, them the breaks when supply is catching up to demand or cannot meet demand), tenant rights with strong local regulatory oversight, government incentives to encourage a diverse ecosystem of suppliers bringing new supply onto the market based on forecasted market demand (cost of capital, regulatory streamlining support, construction labor pipeline, etc), upzoning whenever possible to encourage density as much as reasonable.
Supplier diversity is needed to prevent use of market power to restrict new supply coming online to hold rents higher than they otherwise would be (strong evidence homebuilders are doing this current state, restricting supply to juice profitability). The rest should be self explanatory. As you said, there is no silver bullet; it is various policy measures working in concert to attempt to arrive at a desired outcome. I am not anti profits, I am anti "gouge the human for basic needs for profits."
TLDR Some profits? Okay. Too much profit? Not okay. People living in constant fear of not having a home? Not okay. Build, build, build.
(am a landlord myself, do not raise rents unless actual costs go up, reduce rents when needed by tenants, keep my profits reasonable [~%6-%10], usually no more than $100/month/door)
How many economics studies, from all schools of economic thought, across 100 years of research need to prove that price controls don't work before people start accepting that fact?
I mean dynamic price control works in most French cities. The exception is Paris, but they tried a static price control for no reason (also, non-market housing supply is diminishing, which is a bad thing. Capitals with 30 to 40% non-market housing are doing extremely well usually)
> prevent them from accelerating beyond what wages can support
In practice what does this mean? If landlords raise rents beyond what people can pay... doesn't that mean they lose tenants? If they do not lose tenants, then by definition doesn't it mean they have not raised rents beyond what people can pay?
Okay, so I was right: "protect renters" was indeed referring to price controls. Price controls coupled with what sounds like blatantly nativist policy:
> Dynamic price control of rents to prevent them from accelerating beyond what wages can support (existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants...
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants"? Does this mean that landlords must rent at lower rates to someone who has lived in SF for some time, versus an immigrant that is willing to pay higher rents?
I think GP is pretty clearly implying more akin to Prop 13 but for renters (i.e. Prop 13 locks in increase in property taxes to 2% a year), this policy would do something similar for rent.
It benefits existing renters because new entrants (new renters) would have to pay market price, but existing renters might be behind market rent if market rents are increasing too quickly. Same way that Prop 13 works.
Dynamic in the sense that it's not fixed at 2% but tied to some sort of variable index (San Diego for example does CPI + 5% with a hard cap of 10% YoY increase I believe)
> I think GP is pretty clearly implying more akin to Prop 13 but for renters (i.e. Prop 13 locks in increase in property taxes to 2% a year), this policy would do something similar for rent.
It's called rent control. That's literally describing the existing rent control policies in SF: rent is fixes save for an extremely minor increase around 2%. Allowing a fixed price increase is still a form of price controls.
I really want the previous comment to elaborate on this:
> existing tenants win vs potential new market entrants
