To hear critics of the recently proposed moratorium on Westside condo conversions tell it, you would think such a moratorium was not just un-American, but downright ignorant of the principles of economics. If property values are too high, the only way to lower them is to increase supply, they say. And they’re right: A+ in Econ 101, congratulations. The next part of their argument is where our professorial red pens should come out. Critics of the moratorium contend that by limiting developers, the city would be tying the hands of the only people able to solve the problem of a skyrocketing market. And that answer would earn anyone a D in civics class.
The free market does not patrol itself-that’s just part of why government exists: to protect the “little guy” from the “big guy” who wants to turn rent-controlled apartments into Ritz-Carlton suites for a bigger buck. This is exactly where city government steps in with restrictions and incentives to ensure that developers don’t run rampant until only millionaires can afford to live within the city limits.
A moratorium would not be the egregious-even illegal-treatment of property rights that opponents make it out to be. Like the downtown moratorium passed in April, this Westside “time-out” would be a year interim that gives City Hall time to consider how best to offer incentives and restrictions to developers. On the other hand, a moratorium not accompanied by serious consideration to the future of city housing would be just that: a time-out in an otherwise unfair and unwise game of unaffordable living. The city would be wise to consider a measure similar to the San Francisco law that requires a certain percentage of affordable units for every conversion development. Of course, this isn’t common sense for a condo tycoon, but it should be for our city representatives.