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
building is ever converted to a condo. The permits we look at specifically are addition/al- <br />teration permits, taken out when major work is done to a property. <br />We begin by plotting in Figure Ila the effects of rent control on the number of individuals <br />living at a given parcel, calculated as percentage of the average number of individuals living <br />at that parcel between the years 1990-1994. We estimate a decline of approximately 10 <br />percent over the long -run, although this effect is not statistically significant. <br />We next decompose this effect into the impact on the number of renters and the number <br />of owners living at the treated buildings. As shown in Figure 111), we find that there is <br />a significant decline in the number of renters living at a parcel, approximately equal to 20 <br />percent in the late 2000s, relative to the 1990-1994 level. Figure Ile shows that the decline <br />in renters was counterbalanced by an increase of approximately 10 percent in the number <br />of owners in the late 2000s. This is our first evidence suggestive of the idea that landlords <br />redeveloped or converted their properties so as to exempt them from the new rent control <br />regulations. <br />We now look more closely at the decline in renters. In Figure 12b, we see that there is <br />an eventual decline of almost 30 percent in the number of renters living in rent -controlled <br />apartments, relative to the 1990-1994 average." This decline is significantly larger than the <br />overall decline in renters. This is because a number of buildings which were subject to rent <br />control status in 1994 were redeveloped in such way so as to no longer be subject to it. <br />These redevelopment activities include tearing down the existing structure and putting up <br />new single family, condominium, or multifamily housing or simply converting the existing <br />structure to condos. These redeveloped buildings replaced about 10 percent of the initial <br />rental housing stock treated by rent control, as shown in Figure 12a. <br />A natural question is whether this redevelopment activity was a response of landlords <br />to the imposition of rent control or, instead, if such activity was also taking place within <br />the control group and thus reflected other trends. Since we have the entire parcel history <br />11Note here that we mean relative to the number of individuals who lived at parcels which received rent <br />control status clue to the 1994 law change. <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.