4 ms·

It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's t

by CPops 14y ago

It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's their best available option.

tptacek 14y ago
Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Just curious, what do you believe is the justification for laws demanding minimum apt sizes/minimum heating requirements? The ordinary arguments about externalities certainly don't seem to apply... As an anecdote, while I was poor, I didn't turn the heat on because I couldn't afford it. Do you believe the law should have forced me to turn the heat on? If not, why not?
  - saalweachter 14y ago
    In New York City, heat isn't something individual units control. All heat in every apartment I have ever lived in or visited is generated by a boiler controlled by the landlord. Consequently, the laws in New York City aren't mandating what individual homeowners must do, they are mandating what landlords must do, namely, that when the temperatures drop below a certain point, they must provide heat to their tenants.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      In NY it strongly depends on the building. Big buildings typically have central heating, small ones often have individual boilers. In any case, a law mandating the minimum a person can sell is economically equivalent to a law mandating the minimum a person can buy. If I'd rather have more money but wear sweaters (at one point in my life this was my preference), I'm not allowed to make that choice.
      - saalweachter 14y ago
        Do you realize how stingy landlords are allowed to be with the heat? The actual (nighttime) rule is: * Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit. 55 degrees! Do you honestly want an apartment which is 45, 40, 35 degrees at night? Hell, it's probably not even sane to keep an apartment under 55 degrees in the winter, for fear of the pipes freezing.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    First off: I'm not arguing that micro-apartments should be illegal; just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position. One obvious cost of regulating housing is the need to revisit and recalibrate those regs, and I agree in advance that our state governments suck at that. So then: I think this is a discussion that would quickly devolve into a debate over the tenement reform movement. I'd just say that the codes and statutes covering apartments were a reaction to a time where housing was so cramped and substandard that it caused cholera outbreaks, riots, and a 10% infant mortality rate among tenement dwellers. So then the idea behind the codes is simply: it's good that people buy property and convert into rental dwellings, because a huge number of people need rental housing. But nobody should be allowed to profit from housing that falls below a minimum standard. Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing, (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing, (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses. As for you and your heat: you had the choice not to turn on the heat. If your landlord wasn't required to provide heat, you might not have.
    - orangecat 14y ago
      Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom Counterexample: I moved from Houston, where almost every apartment has good air conditioning, but it's not required by law (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&id=8272677 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&...). Market forces are sufficient to prevent landlords from offering units without AC, because nobody would pay for them.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        'yummyfajitas made the same point upthread; my response to both of you is, if a market race to the bottom isn't a real concern, why did we need a tenement rights movement from 1880 on through the New Deal just to get people windows and plumbing? Perhaps the market quality floor for housing is in part a product of the minimum standard housing allowed by the state. Perhaps there's low marginal cost of adding an AC if you're required by law to keep apartments at some minimum level of quality; you might as well spend a small amount of money to compete on quality, because you can't compete on price.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  I don't see how that follows logically. Please enlighten me.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The same logic in the comment I responded to also suggests that people should be free to choose to pay less for apartments that don't provide heat. And yet they are not free to do so.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      IE 9 doesn't obey them.
seiji 14y ago
Crazier: when you find a place you like, apply, then they say you can't have it because your salary is too high. Each apartment complex (by law) has a percentage of units leased only to people making less than a certain amount.
- hisyam 14y ago
  I'm guessing they're prioritizing the low wage earners first?
  - seiji 14y ago
    It's not even prioritizing, it's a form of market voodoo discrimination. "[California] State law requires that 15% of residential development occurring in Redevelopment Project Areas adopted after January 1, 1976 be subject to long-term affordability restrictions, to be fulfilled on a cumulative basis every 10 years." That doesn't mean they just make units available at $1200/month anybody can lease -- it means the $1200/month units are only available to people making under a percentage-off-median wage for the area.

by CPops 14y ago

It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's their best available option.

tptacek 14y ago

Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Just curious, what do you believe is the justification for laws demanding minimum apt sizes/minimum heating requirements? The ordinary arguments about externalities certainly don't seem to apply... As an anecdote, while I was poor, I didn't turn the heat on because I couldn't afford it. Do you believe the law should have forced me to turn the heat on? If not, why not?
- saalweachter 14y ago
  In New York City, heat isn't something individual units control. All heat in every apartment I have ever lived in or visited is generated by a boiler controlled by the landlord. Consequently, the laws in New York City aren't mandating what individual homeowners must do, they are mandating what landlords must do, namely, that when the temperatures drop below a certain point, they must provide heat to their tenants.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    In NY it strongly depends on the building. Big buildings typically have central heating, small ones often have individual boilers. In any case, a law mandating the minimum a person can sell is economically equivalent to a law mandating the minimum a person can buy. If I'd rather have more money but wear sweaters (at one point in my life this was my preference), I'm not allowed to make that choice.
    - saalweachter 14y ago
      Do you realize how stingy landlords are allowed to be with the heat? The actual (nighttime) rule is: * Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit. 55 degrees! Do you honestly want an apartment which is 45, 40, 35 degrees at night? Hell, it's probably not even sane to keep an apartment under 55 degrees in the winter, for fear of the pipes freezing.
- tptacek 14y ago
  First off: I'm not arguing that micro-apartments should be illegal; just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position. One obvious cost of regulating housing is the need to revisit and recalibrate those regs, and I agree in advance that our state governments suck at that. So then: I think this is a discussion that would quickly devolve into a debate over the tenement reform movement. I'd just say that the codes and statutes covering apartments were a reaction to a time where housing was so cramped and substandard that it caused cholera outbreaks, riots, and a 10% infant mortality rate among tenement dwellers. So then the idea behind the codes is simply: it's good that people buy property and convert into rental dwellings, because a huge number of people need rental housing. But nobody should be allowed to profit from housing that falls below a minimum standard. Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing, (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing, (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses. As for you and your heat: you had the choice not to turn on the heat. If your landlord wasn't required to provide heat, you might not have.
  - orangecat 14y ago
    Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom Counterexample: I moved from Houston, where almost every apartment has good air conditioning, but it's not required by law (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&id=8272677 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&...). Market forces are sufficient to prevent landlords from offering units without AC, because nobody would pay for them.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      'yummyfajitas made the same point upthread; my response to both of you is, if a market race to the bottom isn't a real concern, why did we need a tenement rights movement from 1880 on through the New Deal just to get people windows and plumbing? Perhaps the market quality floor for housing is in part a product of the minimum standard housing allowed by the state. Perhaps there's low marginal cost of adding an AC if you're required by law to keep apartments at some minimum level of quality; you might as well spend a small amount of money to compete on quality, because you can't compete on price.
tomjen3 14y ago
I don't see how that follows logically. Please enlighten me.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The same logic in the comment I responded to also suggests that people should be free to choose to pay less for apartments that don't provide heat. And yet they are not free to do so.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    IE 9 doesn't obey them.

seiji 14y ago

Crazier: when you find a place you like, apply, then they say you can't have it because your salary is too high. Each apartment complex (by law) has a percentage of units leased only to people making less than a certain amount.

hisyam 14y ago
I'm guessing they're prioritizing the low wage earners first?
- seiji 14y ago
  It's not even prioritizing, it's a form of market voodoo discrimination. "[California] State law requires that 15% of residential development occurring in Redevelopment Project Areas adopted after January 1, 1976 be subject to long-term affordability restrictions, to be fulfilled on a cumulative basis every 10 years." That doesn't mean they just make units available at $1200/month anybody can lease -- it means the $1200/month units are only available to people making under a percentage-off-median wage for the area.