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
around $25,000. These numbers seem very much in line with popular press anecdotes about <br />tenant buyouts in San Francisco. <br />Moving along to our estimates of moving costs, we find the fixed cost of moving is <br />equivalent, in rent -equivalent dollars, to $42,626 for young renters and $38,988 for old renters. <br />These estimates seem quite reasonable and actually quite below what is typically found in <br />the literature. A main driver of the magnitude of this estimate are the short -run migration <br />elasticities with respect to a one-year temporary change. It is often quite hard to find a high <br />quality instrument for rents that does not effect other omitted variables such as amenities. <br />Likely, many instruments for rent also impact the supply and quality of amenities, leading <br />to rent elasticities being biased towards 0. Our rent control policy experiment only affects <br />rents and cannot effect amenities in our regressions, as we are comparing migration decisions <br />between market rent and rent controlled households in the same neighborhood consuming <br />the same amenities. <br />In addition to the fixed costs of moving, we find that the moving costs increase with <br />the distance of the move. A 1 percent increase in move distance is equivalent to $114 for <br />the young and $101 for the old. Finally, we also consider whether these variable moving <br />costs change as households live in their zipcodes longer. One might think that the longer <br />a household has lived in the area the more familiar they are with further and further away <br />neighborhoods, lowering those marginal moving costs. Indeed, we find this is the case, with <br />each additional year a tenant has lived in their zipcode lowering the moving cost by $415 for <br />the young and $357 for the old. <br />Lastly, we turn to our neighborhood capital estimates. Proponents of rent control often <br />argue that long-term residents are the ones in the most need of rent control as migrating <br />away from their community forces them to lose many of the connections and investments <br />they have been in the neighborhoods over time. We do find very statistically significant <br />effects of neighborhood capital accumulation. However, the economic magnitude is small. <br />Young (mature) households increasingly value living in their zipcode by $266 ($292) in dollar <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.