[HN Gopher] 100 Years of Rent Control in Sweden
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       100 Years of Rent Control in Sweden
        
       Author : paulpauper
       Score  : 29 points
       Date   : 2024-03-09 21:17 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.betonit.ai)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.betonit.ai)
        
       | michaelje wrote:
       | >> critics argue that it reduces the supply of rental apartments
       | and creates housing shortages
       | 
       | I don't follow the logic. It doesn't destroy the property or take
       | it out of supply, it just means someone might not purchase it
       | specifically to rent it out. Which in turn means less demand
       | buying houses overall, which means more opportunities for people
       | to buy (if they want?)
        
         | graeme wrote:
         | This analysis only works if you assume the supply is fixed.
         | 
         | If you increase the returns to building ownership then people
         | will build more buildings. Which lowers prices.
         | 
         | Capping supply by decreasing the returns leads to less supply,
         | other things equal.
        
         | jayski wrote:
         | It doesn't destroy the property or take it out of supply.
         | 
         | But it also strongly disincentivizes potential investors in
         | building new rental properties. Which makes perfect sense,if
         | you inherited 5million euro would you spend it building rent
         | controlled apartments or put into stocks&bonds?
        
           | dehrmann wrote:
           | Or in a US scenario, would you rather build rentals in Texas
           | or California?
        
             | toomuchtodo wrote:
             | California. It's the world's fifth largest economy. I will
             | take some regulatory risk over volatility in Texas.
             | California vacancy rates speak for themselves, there is
             | voracious demand for housing there vs Texas.
        
         | neom wrote:
         | In Toronto, as it has been explained to me by some banker
         | types, in 2006 they introduced some pretty strong rent control,
         | and developers just switched from building rentals to building
         | condos, now Toronto has no rental units and a zillion condos
         | that not many people can afford to buy or rent.^ Friend of mine
         | lives in a condo and over half the units in his floor are now
         | managed airbnbs.
         | 
         | ^ Couple this situation with no restrictions (in fact
         | encouragement) on foreign buyers for many many years, and you
         | have condos sitting empty, condos rented out for amounts nobody
         | can afford, and condos turning into airbnbs for rich tourists.
         | From what I gather, both Toronto and Vancouver are a real mess
         | because of this.
        
           | voisin wrote:
           | > friend of mine lives in a condo and over half the units in
           | his floor are now managed airbnbs
           | 
           | This should change with the new Anti-AirBNB(Short term
           | rental) rules at municipal, provincial, and federal (CRA)
           | levels.
        
             | infotainment wrote:
             | ...and it ends up being a cascade of new regulations to try
             | and address the unforeseen consequences of the previous
             | regulation. Eventually you end up like San Francisco where
             | no new housing ever gets built ever again and prices are
             | sky-high because of it.
        
             | paulddraper wrote:
             | So now fewer condos and apartments are produced.
             | 
             | Brilliant.
        
         | colonwqbang wrote:
         | 1. Few new rentals are built, because it's not profitable
         | 
         | 2. Existing rentals are converted to condominiums, because that
         | is more profitable
         | 
         | If you can afford to buy a condominium, great. If not, there is
         | always the public housing company. I hope you're not in a hurry
         | though because the typical waiting time to get a rental in
         | Stockholm is 7-11 years.
         | 
         | https://bostad.stockholm.se/english/
        
         | paulddraper wrote:
         | I refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39655144
         | 
         | > there's a queue for rentals, so you register that you want to
         | rent in Stockholm, and then you get put on a list, and then
         | wait two years for it to be your turn
         | 
         | Price capping any good -- housing, fuel, food -- by definition
         | produces a shortage.
         | 
         | A shortage is when there is more demand than supply at the
         | market price.
         | 
         | And artificially lowering the market price increases the amount
         | demanded and reduces the amount supplied.
        
           | tonoto wrote:
           | I believe that the queue hasn't been as short as "two years"
           | in a couple of decades.
        
       | fragmede wrote:
       | There are a bunch of other details about the Stockholm housing
       | market that I think are relevant. I information is dated, as I
       | did not end up moving there, but circa 2017, condos cost m around
       | $300k, but were not expected to appreciate significantly, unlike
       | the US housing market, so it wouldn't be an investment the same
       | way a condo in SF would be. The other thing is that there's a
       | queue for rentals, so you register that you want to rent in
       | Stockholm, and then you get put on a list, and then wait two
       | years for it to be your turn. which leads to the black market
       | mentioned in the post - if you know somebody, you can skip the
       | line. of course if you buy a place you don't have to wait in
       | line, the rich get to buy their way in. so it's not just about
       | price fixing, but also accessibility to find them in the first
       | place. it's not the same free for all to just jump on craiglist
       | and everyone rushes to apply at the showing.
        
       | 58028641 wrote:
       | Rent control just rewards people who are lucky enough to get
       | locked in lower rates. The best way to make rent affordable is to
       | increase supply, then the price will fall.
        
         | noahtallen wrote:
         | There's a limit to how much price can fall when buildings and
         | land are investments. A house which appreciates underneath
         | tenants will get sold, the new owner will have a higher
         | mortgage payment, and rent will necessarily be higher.
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | Most of life is luck, and life isn't fair.
        
       | tuatoru wrote:
       | The older I get, the more libertarian. A landowner should be
       | allowed to build whatever they want[1], irrespective of the
       | objections of neighbors. Viewshafts, sunlight blocking,
       | neighborhood "character", convenants on building attributes like
       | size or materials? Nonsense.
       | 
       | 1. Subject to physiological and environmental safeguards like
       | water supply and waste disposal for inhabitants, temperature,
       | humidity and air healthiness, fire and earthquake safety, noise
       | pollution, stormwater management.
        
         | bdjsiqoocwk wrote:
         | "whatever they want" and then you add an asterisk. Give it a
         | few years, as you get older and more libertarian your asterisk
         | will get smaller and smaller.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-09 23:01 UTC)