Two landlords in San Francisco have been arrested for terrorizing a tenant after failing to evict him under that city's statist rent control laws. Now, I'm not defending their actions. They knew or should have known the rules when they bought the building. Given that this is San Francisco, they also should have known that those rules would only be bent in favor of the tenant. But this kind of thing could only happen when government interferes in private contracts and free markets.
As Chris Rock said of O.J. Simpson: "I'm not saying he should of killed her. But I understand"
The tenant in question was the last holdout in the owner's unsuccessful attempt to empty the building under what's known as the Ellis Act. Under this byzantine law, the landlord could only evict if they were "going out of business" and paid the tenant $4,500 in relocation costs. An additional $3,000 is required if the tenant is a senior or disabled. I suspect the tenant was holding out for more by exercising property rights he never deserved in the first place. The landlords nevertheless still had to pay their mortgage, taxes and other bills without their government mandated income because the courts allowed one tenant out of six to remain on their property.
It's easy to do good things for the most voters with others property by forcibly inserting yourself as a third party to a contract. It's even easier when you assume none of the risk or cost of this forced charity.
As with most liberal policies, these laws end up hurting the very people they were supposed to protect. It is axiomatic that when you restrict the cost of anything, you will have less of it. That is glaringly obvious with rent control. The cities and states with the lowest vacancies and highest rents are those with these laws. And where they've been repealed, as in the Boston area, availability has skyrocketed and rents have dropped. That's what profit driven competition does if it's allowed to do it.
But the proponents of these policies are concerned only with intentions, not results. The damage they do is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of their Utopian ideals. Whether they actually work isn't the point. To them it's not fair that some own property and others must rent it. So rather than encourage more ownership, they devalue it while handing more power to themselves.
So who won here? No one but the government. The other two parties lost and are miserable, but equally so. That's how socialists define success.
As Chris Rock said of O.J. Simpson: "I'm not saying he should of killed her. But I understand"
The tenant in question was the last holdout in the owner's unsuccessful attempt to empty the building under what's known as the Ellis Act. Under this byzantine law, the landlord could only evict if they were "going out of business" and paid the tenant $4,500 in relocation costs. An additional $3,000 is required if the tenant is a senior or disabled. I suspect the tenant was holding out for more by exercising property rights he never deserved in the first place. The landlords nevertheless still had to pay their mortgage, taxes and other bills without their government mandated income because the courts allowed one tenant out of six to remain on their property.
It's easy to do good things for the most voters with others property by forcibly inserting yourself as a third party to a contract. It's even easier when you assume none of the risk or cost of this forced charity.
As with most liberal policies, these laws end up hurting the very people they were supposed to protect. It is axiomatic that when you restrict the cost of anything, you will have less of it. That is glaringly obvious with rent control. The cities and states with the lowest vacancies and highest rents are those with these laws. And where they've been repealed, as in the Boston area, availability has skyrocketed and rents have dropped. That's what profit driven competition does if it's allowed to do it.
But the proponents of these policies are concerned only with intentions, not results. The damage they do is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of their Utopian ideals. Whether they actually work isn't the point. To them it's not fair that some own property and others must rent it. So rather than encourage more ownership, they devalue it while handing more power to themselves.
So who won here? No one but the government. The other two parties lost and are miserable, but equally so. That's how socialists define success.
No comments:
Post a Comment