Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Rent control, etc.
Message-ID: <129@loral.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-May-84 17:26:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: loral.129
Posted: Tue May 15 17:26:51 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 07:43:48 EDT
References: <140@oliven.UUCP>, <3268@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: Loral Instruments, San Diego
Lines: 57

Much has been said in this forum about the 'right' to one thing
or another, e.g. "I am a human being, ergo, I have a right to housing,   
etc. and on my terms..."

Certainly we all have rights to many things, (life, liberty...).  We DON'T
have an equivalent right to material wealth beyond that which we have earned.
Why?  Because all material good (including housing, subsistence and basic
needs) exist only as the result of someone's productive labor, and the
'right' to that result belongs to the person whose labor produced it.
This is not to deny the human compassion that engenders so much sharing,
but the idea that anyone has an unconditional right to anything someone
else had to produce or pay for underlies so much of the socialistic 
sentiment that has grown in the world in recent history, and the genesis
of such oxymorons as 'welfare rights'.  Welfare, publicly supported schools,
and the myriad other transfers of wealth we all live with, good and otherwise,
are gifts, not 'rights'.

A landlord owns the property s/he rents just the way you (possibly) own
your automobile, or stereo system, or pocket calculator.  You would not
appreciate a heavy-handed bureaucracy requiring you to give some number
of free rides to persons without cars as a condition to registering your
vehicle.  Why then require the owner of a property to determine the worth
of the product s/he offers on the basis of what rate is comfortable for
you, rather than the market?

Granted, in offering a product to the public, the landlord incurs certain
ethical, moral, and legal, obligations.  That's why some capricious
actions on the parts of landlords are illegal in this state.  But
it is clear from the record of all manner of price controls, including
rent controls, that *overall*, they have not benefitted renters,
have accelerated the decay of rental property and created a disincentive
to lanlords to expand the supply of good rental units, accelerated th
conversion of rental units to condominiums, etc.  While one small geographical
area may buck the trend, the big picture supports the open market.

Part of the reason for this is plain old supply and demand.  As renting
property becomes less attractive (e.g. under rent control), more units
are removed from the market, and/or fewer new units are offered.  More
persons seeking rentals are clamoring for these fewer units, leaving more
out in the cold, and ultimately *increasing* upward pressure on rents.
Conversely, when favorable returns from rentals attract more landlords
and units, it becomes more of a buyer's market, inherently keeping
prices in line (though not, perhaps, exactly where *you* think the
line should be). 

When the price of gasoline was deregulated, the liberal consensus bemoaned
two-dollar-a-gallon gasoline.  I filled up yesterday at less than a
dollar-twenty.  What happened?  The free market worked, that's what.
Rental property is the same.

Bear in mind too that property values in California rose incredibly in
the last half-decade.  Landlords pay more, and have to charge more.

Yours for economic freedom!

Ray Simard