ajhit406/gist:6ba9d3821a8d0963af18

## gistfile1.txt
http://www.economist.com/comment/2358176#comment-2358176

I am one of these SF oligarchs, and I benefit from high rents of both types. Nevertheless, I have long called for an end to the rent-seeking. To me, the problem started when the boomers of old voted themselves two enormous market distortions over 30 years ago.

Proposition 13 was sold as a means of keeping granny in her home, but it does not particularly benefit the elderly, the sick, or the needy. It benefits land owning incumbents (like me) at the expense of everyone else. Kill it. Start with the grotesque subsidy for commercial property, and then phase out the residential subsidy.

Not to be outdone, SF renters voted themselves a rent control ordinance. This also does not particularly benefit the elderly, the sick, or the needy. Like Prop 13, it benefits one thing only - incumbency. I know fairly wealthy 50-somethings who have rented apartments for decades, and now pay a third or a quarter of market rates thanks to rent control. They keep these now as pied-a-terres, while they own comfortable homes in Marin or the wine country. For each one of these old renters, there are ten smart ambitious young people desperate to contribute new creativity and energy into the community if they could just find a room. Only the wealthiest of these can compete for the few remaining market rate units, and they must pay plenty of both kinds of rent, to people like me.

This may be seem like daydreaming, but I hope Governor Brown and SF can someday create a grand bargain. Kill Prop 13 AND rent control with the stroke of a pen.

As for overall supply and demand, I would support a state law that creates
1 - an estimate of statewide population growth
2 - a requirement that every municipality periodically rezone to accommodate a portion of that growth proportional to its current size; or
3 - pay another municipality to take its share

This would create something like a reverse cap and trade system to manage the supposed externalities of growth. This way, NIMBY cities would have to pay growth-friendly cities, and NIMBY voters would have to pay for their selfish rent-seeking behavior. Who knows? There might even be less of it.
	http://www.economist.com/comment/2358176#comment-2358176

	I am one of these SF oligarchs, and I benefit from high rents of both types. Nevertheless, I have long called for an end to the rent-seeking. To me, the problem started when the boomers of old voted themselves two enormous market distortions over 30 years ago.

	Proposition 13 was sold as a means of keeping granny in her home, but it does not particularly benefit the elderly, the sick, or the needy. It benefits land owning incumbents (like me) at the expense of everyone else. Kill it. Start with the grotesque subsidy for commercial property, and then phase out the residential subsidy.

	Not to be outdone, SF renters voted themselves a rent control ordinance. This also does not particularly benefit the elderly, the sick, or the needy. Like Prop 13, it benefits one thing only - incumbency. I know fairly wealthy 50-somethings who have rented apartments for decades, and now pay a third or a quarter of market rates thanks to rent control. They keep these now as pied-a-terres, while they own comfortable homes in Marin or the wine country. For each one of these old renters, there are ten smart ambitious young people desperate to contribute new creativity and energy into the community if they could just find a room. Only the wealthiest of these can compete for the few remaining market rate units, and they must pay plenty of both kinds of rent, to people like me.

	This may be seem like daydreaming, but I hope Governor Brown and SF can someday create a grand bargain. Kill Prop 13 AND rent control with the stroke of a pen.

	As for overall supply and demand, I would support a state law that creates
	1 - an estimate of statewide population growth
	2 - a requirement that every municipality periodically rezone to accommodate a portion of that growth proportional to its current size; or
	3 - pay another municipality to take its share

	This would create something like a reverse cap and trade system to manage the supposed externalities of growth. This way, NIMBY cities would have to pay growth-friendly cities, and NIMBY voters would have to pay for their selfish rent-seeking behavior. Who knows? There might even be less of it.