The Hopp Stop

1. 

   A-Bo
   May 8th, 2008 - 06:20

   thanks for posting the link to the Buzz interview. You’re right he’s more coherent but also more of a pompous ass. How condescending is “the dumbing down thing”? I’m pretty sure the literacy rates are higher than ever but I guess that’s only one measure. The interviewer gives a good point about the best seller in 1966 but think about all the other mainstream crap (Three Stooges, Threes Company, etc.) that existed well before blogs. As far as his “faked books” comments. I can’t figure out how that is connected with blogs except that THE SMOKING GUN was the one who busted Frey. And the “I actually have other things to do with my life” comment. Yeah, like spend a year of it so you can write a book about every pitch of three games of a 162 game season. Way to change the world Buzzie. And why is MSM “reliable news”? Didn’t the NYT apologize for letting us down about the war? We know a lot more about the crap going down from the soliders themselves, who can now write a blog about their experience.
2. 

   Seabass
   May 8th, 2008 - 08:41

   I thought some of the comments in the Chronicle rent control article were interesting. People made the point that with the current rent controls in place, the supply of rental housing is reduced, thereby resulting in increased rents for those who don’t have rent controlled apartments. I still buy the economic argument that if rent control was removed, a lot of people would end up having to pay more in rent. But on net, I’m not convinced that it wouldn’t be better for renters. Those who don’t have rent controlled apartments might actually see a reduction in rent, with everyone’s rent gravitating towards an equilibrium between the two present price poles. There would also be higher quality housing, and increased availability of apartments for rent.
3. 

   Hopp
   May 8th, 2008 - 08:52

   Re: housing: The concern I have is that if housing is a scarce good in SF, will the equilibrium price be really high? Or will quality not actually go up?–I could see landlords choosing to not put any money into the properties after rent control is removed and raising rents to the point where there is just enough demand to fill apts. If the current market of renters lacks the ability for whatever reasons to move out of SF in the face of a price increase with no add’l benefits, or if they are willing to pay more for housing to get SF’s benefits, then this may be a likely result.

   Seems like the only probable positive is increased number of apartments on the market, as the higher rent levels means condos may be converted to apartments.

   Well, another positive goes to Seabass’ point about the price disparity between rent-controlled places (pre-1979) and non-controlled (e.g., new condos in South Beach and SoMa). It would make certain parts of the city with new buildings more appealing, because that price disparity would go away. And a renter would be able to rent a newer apartment without paying an artificially higher price than an old one–sometimes new ones can be appealing b/c of cleanliness, new amenities, etc.

   One quote in the article came from a guy who proposed tying a housing subsidy to the renter, rather than the apartment. On first glance that sounds like it makes sense.

Leave a comment