When Boston ended rent control in the late 90s, all of the sudden the landlords invested in their goldmine buildings and generally improved the city. It sucks for those trying to rent or buy (including me, I paid 60% more for a house in 2002 than what it was worth in 1996), but the city has certainly had a renaissance.

IMHO, the problem now is bad zoning. The rich car-centric suburbs are preventing denser housing- to their own financial detriment. A recent fight is that the state has forced them to allow higher density housing around commuter rail stops. Similar fights about rail trails, future abutters are afraid of change but they are valuable everywhere they exist- in that they are a desirable feature and raise your house's value.

Another problem is that they overbuilt $100/sqft bio-lab space. These are sitting empty, and the owners refuse to lower the rent.. I don't understand how the owners remain solvent.

The funding for the types of infrastructure that is made less efficient by sprawl needs to come from property taxes. Those taxes should then be scaled appropriately to reflect the amount of extra spending on sprawly infrastructure.

This is why you need a two prong approach: city-led redevelopment or redevelopment incentives on top of rent stabilization. Boston is not rapidly growing new housing relative to the number of people who are trying to live there. The median rent price per capita of the Boston metro is much, much higher than NY metro, nearly 4x in fact.[1] Boston should not be as expensive as New York, when the latter has rent stabilization (and even some old apartments still under rent control) and the former does not.

> I don't understand how the owners remain solvent.

I think that tells you everything you need to know about who's renting them out.

[1]: https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-with-the-mo...

The Massachusetts law requiring cities/towns to build high-density housing around commuter rail stops neglected one thing. There's no open space. To build high-density housing, the city or state would have to buy out the existing landowners, demolish the existing property, and then build anew.

They also neglected the effect of travel time on behavior. Back in the day, I was commuting from a rich suburb to Cambridge, and to get to work on time, I had to get up early to accommodate a 30-minute commute to the train station, wait for the purple line and the red line, and then walk three-quarters of a mile. When I saw how little traffic was on the road, I said, "F it," and drove to work in the same amount of time as it took me to get to the train station.

In the Biolab space, it was a little overbuilt, and now it's tremendously overbuilt because of the killing off of NIH grants and subsequent reduction in investment in the biotech sector. I suspect the reason they don't drop the rent is that it would cause a bit of unraveling. You drop the rent; that changes the valuation of your building, which may mean you're underwater on the loan, the bank calls the loan, et cetera, et cetera. Then, similar properties would suffer devaluation and a similar unwinding. And if you agree with the contagion theory of deflationary environments, it'll all unwind all the way through your 401k and other investments. Sadly, the billionaires would be untouched.

Sure, when you kick out all the poor people, the city definitely does look richer.

Also, when the topic of rent control, sorry, rent stabilization, comes up here in the Boston area now people won't allow for inflation adjustments. I'd be okay with a scheme that allowed for automatic inflation adjustment plus some float. But instead they're always proposed in a way that has a max cap. This means that an owner could potentially start losing money. And leads to the flip side of what you describe.

When I point this out in r/boston, cambridgema, and somerville I get downvoted to oblivion because obviously fuck the landlord class. But why on earth would anyone start renting a place if they know they could get soaked over time?

[dead]