My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - WS-1 OPPOSITION
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2018
>
02/06/2018
>
CORRESPONDENCE - WS-1 OPPOSITION
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 8:34:51 AM
Creation date
2/6/2018 8:53:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
WS-1
Date
2/6/2018
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
233
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, <br />Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San <br />Francisco * <br />Rebecca Diamondt, Tim McQuade$ , & Franklin Qian§ <br />October 11, 2017 <br />Abstract <br />In this paper, we exploit quasi -experimental variation in the assignment of rent con- <br />trol in San Francisco to study its impacts on tenants, landlords, and the rental market <br />as a whole. Leveraging new micro data which tracks an individual's migration over <br />time, we find that rent control increased the probability a renter stayed at their address <br />by close to 20 percent. At the same time, we find that landlords whose properties were <br />exogenously covered by rent control reduced their supply of available rental housing by <br />15%, by either converting to condos/TICS, selling to owner occupied, or redeveloping <br />buildings. This led to a city-wide rent increase of 7% and caused $5 billion of welfare <br />losses to all renters. We develop a dynamic, structural model of neighborhood choice <br />to evaluate the welfare impacts of our reduced form effects. We find that rent con- <br />trol offered large benefits to impacted tenants during the 1995-2012 period, averaging <br />between $2300 and $6600 per person each year, with aggregate benefits totaling over <br />$390 million annually. The substantial welfare losses due to decreased housing supply <br />could be mitigated if insurance against large rent increases was provided as a form of <br />government social insurance, instead of a regulated mandate on landlords. <br />*Wc are grateful for comments from Ed Glaser, Christopher Palmer, Paul Scott, and seminar participants <br />at the NEER, Real Estate Summer Institute, The Conference on Urban and Regional Economics, and the <br />Stanford Finance Faculty Lunch. <br />tStanford University & NBER. Email: diamondr@stanford.edu. <br />tStanford University. Email: tmequadcUstanfbrd.edu . <br />gStanfbrd University. Email: zgianl@stanford.edu . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.