I have a friend who argued in public forums (local newspapers+blogs) for denser housing being more walkable and sustainable (in a wealthy small neighborhood we both lived in.) "Small towns" was/is the nationwide name for the trend.
Unknown opponents dug up and published dirt on him that even his wife, friends and employer didn't know. It was quite sobering.
It sucks that your friend had his closet ransacked for skeletons. This is why I’m completely honest with mine.
Rent has been cooling off in Austin because the amount of people moving there has heavily gone down and tech companies have either stopped opening new buildings there or have outright started to leave. The huge rise in rents was effectively due to a 'tech speculation' bubble as a result of every major tech company saying they were going to move to Austin and it was going to be the new tech capital of the US.
One of the problems with rent control is that it pushes the class politics so that renters with housing act more like landowners than they do new tenants, and they conspire to also block housing. People are change averse, even if they don't mind the change after they see it; before the change it's a big threat. This hurts any tenant that needs to move due to things such as becoming an adult, finding a new job, starting a family, getting a divorce or ending a relationship, etc.
Rent control is great as a tenant protection to prevent evictions via rent increases, but it is only a short term protection for tenants otherwise, and can hurt tenants greatly if there's not enough building.
Prices spiked during the pandemic, and in response a shit ton of housing was built, much of it multifamily residential. Rents went down significantly and home prices are down 20% since the peak.
If there is some incentive toward development in non-rent control jurisdictions I suspect it's strongly dominated by other factors.
(ie. Montreal probably has the most restrictive rent control in Canada but it's also seeing the strongest apartment development growth)
it's the "credibility revolution" and someone has won a nobel prize for it.
rent control causes limited mobility (read: displacement out of town) by 20 percent; it causes reduced rental housing supply by 15 percent:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181289
rent control causes reduced property values:
https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/h...
Courts actually need to do their jobs here for an optimal solution - e.g. it should be easy to punish shitty landlords AND easy to kick out shitty tenants.
It shouldn't take a 1+ year wait (as during COVID) to get a landlord-tenant court date to resolve issues.
The housing issue is multi-faceted however, so that's only 1 piece of the puzzle. But thanks to NIMBYs and building code overreach, it's literally impossible to build affordable housing that would rent at its own depreciation schedule.
That doesn't need to be true. In post WW2 UK the government built lots of rental property. That increased the housing supply and hurt private landlords at the same time.
"Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law."
Rent control on the other hand has mostly local effects.
Which means, rent control can push prices down and keep them down. There is indeed a supply reduction, and prices on average will go up—but not in the rent controlled area.
It’s still a poor idea, but it requires centralised planning to avoid.
Edmonton recently outpaced Toronto in housing development on an absolute basis with much lower housing prices and less than 1/5th the population!
Those are the two factors explaining the housing starts, not the ineffectual rent control that exists in Ontario.
Toronto has a cumbersome permitting process that runs from months to years, while Edmonton's process is mostly automated and grants permits within weeks.
Regardless, the other relevant factor here is the actual price of housing, which is substantially higher in Toronto... and yet Toronto struggles (by design) to build anything.
The same cannot be said of Toronto (or everywhere else in the nation that isn't the Prairies for similar reasons), for landed interests and the bureaucracy and corruption that comes with them are a lot more entrenched in that area.
A wonderful city like Montreal can drive enough demand for housing to overcome red tape, and still be building far far less than what would satisfy demand. A less attribute city with lower demand for housing may build less due to lower demand, despite having less red tape.
Trust the economists on this one.
EDIT: I am seeing a nephew comment that says rent control could make NIMBY politics even worse because it makes renters' interests more like homeowners'. Hadn't thought of that.
Some people get bit by a dog and are afraid of dogs their whole lives. It's irrational.
Also, socialism and communism are not synonyms.
Who is making that claim here? It seems ingenuine to bring that up when no one's said anything to that effect in this comment chain.
Mismanagement of resources is bad no matter what system is used. Just because some under one sort of ideology and corrupt leaders failed doesn't mean that folks can't take the bits that were good, adapt and improve them, and see good results.
Other counterexamples are the other European countries with the same safety net which are not petro states (they do have colonial wealth though).
A lot of this was possible because of high corporate taxes and high marginal taxes on high incomes, so in theory this model could apply in most places.
You see this with healthcare in different places: Details change and sometimes it is lacking, but lots of places offer healthcare to its citizens that is low-cost to free when you need it. There is a lot of variation in what countries can do. Some places are poor but still manage to a point. Some places just refuse, like the US - heck, the US has oil and could have funded things for its citizens and keeps bragging about being rich, but they aren't gonna use it for the immediate welfare of its citizens.
Look wha happened to rent prices in Argentina when they removed rent control.
> [A]ccording to the studies examined here, as a rule, rent control leads to higher rents for uncontrolled dwellings. The imposition of rent ceilings amplifies the shortage of housing. Therefore, the waiting queues become longer and would-be tenants must spend more time looking for a dwelling. If they are impatient or have no place to stay (e.g., in the houses of their friends or relatives) while looking for their own dwelling, they turn to the segment that is not subject to regulations. The demand for unregulated housing increases and so do the rents.
From my understanding, European countries tend to have restrictions on what lease renewals can look like and with declining home ownership (and ownership being priced out for many), I think we should look at European models for real solutions to our housing crisis.
But the worst/most aggressively laws are always used as the examples, skewing the conversation to edge cases and ignoring the fact that these laws can and do take hundreds of different forms.
You can put your right to stable housing next to your right to internet, healthcare, and every other meaningless positive right.
Increasing regulation does the opposite of making it easier to build new housing.
I do agree that current residents should be able to prioritize their own needs, but that rarely results in additional housing stock being built.
State/National government are far more likely to stomach lower ROI than the private sector because they can arguably have a more holistic view of what their investment is. However, to be able tod that you also need robust finances in government which has certainly not been the case in most developed western economies since the 80s
In California (and SF in particular) rent control applies to housing older than 15 years and owned by corporate entities.
How does rent control applied as it is in California disincentivize building? I would think that building would be incentivized by rent control because newer housing stock would be exempt from rent control.
While the ROI would be lower compared to allowing rent to increase uncontrolled, in a rent control zone there is more incentive to build (and renovate) to take advantage of market rate leases for (in California's case) 15 years.
Does the argument that rent control (as in California) disincentives building reduce to the argument that uncontrolled rent yields a higher ROI than rent control?
Such an argument is a refusal to allow public good for the benefit of landlords.
Instead of rent control, I propose a forced buy-out model: if the current tenant can manage to buy the home they're currently living in, the landlord is not allowed to refuse the sale. And banks are not allowed to deny such a mortgage if the monthly installments amount to less than the current rent.
Now adding more supply is not trivial in many cases, but at least people can work on the correct problem to solve once it's identified.
Which is? Lot's of people are happy to rent, want to rent, will never want to own a home, want mobility, etc. I rented for nearly 20 years and only past few years went into situation where I want to buy a house. Should I be denied renting?
There's obviously premium to be paid while renting too. There should never be a situation where rent is cheaper than mortgage.
That said, I also think that city policymakers have a responsibility that extends beyond just what will make life better for the current residents of their city. I wish rent control had better data supporting it, but everything I've seen suggests that while it might make things better in the short-term for some, it makes things worse in the long-term for everyone.
It is exceptionally rare for new construction to be subject to rent control laws, unless they utilize special tax breaks or government subsidies. It does nothing more than slightly inconvenience the investor class, who usually aren't thinking past 15-20 years anyway, when rent control laws might theoretically impact their investment.
There is no silver bullet solution. Rent control can be a big part of that solution, but what’s ultimately needed are a combination of policies that disincentivize the hoarding of housing as an asset class, promote home ownership itself for stability and community rather than fiscal nest egg, mandate denser housing in areas served by mass transit, tax land properly by removing caps on yearly increases, protect renters from unnecessary evictions (lack of renewals, no-fault evictions, etc), removing zoning laws on residential and commercial space (essentially reducing zoning laws to industrial vs non-industrial) to speed up approvals for construction, and get the government more active in meeting the needs of its populace through public housing programs (like Singapore does).
It’s highly complex and nuanced. I’ve long since stopped entertaining smug clapbacks from armchair economists who aren’t involved in the boots-on-the-ground issues at hand, and you shouldn’t parrot them around for them.
Once any of those multitude of variables aren’t equal, however, the market can and will exploit it. This is the reason why the housing crisis is global, but the solutions are variable. In New England for instance, there’s a glut of available property currently being hoarded and vacant as an investment hedge, because we have no more land to expand onto. Combined with vacant towns that were former industrial hubs, and there’s an awful lot of available real estate to be clawed back for better use - except markets have been tailored to specifically promote a hoard-and-hedge strategy that harms the working classes (renters and homeowners both), and keeps depressed communities from rebounding. Remote work had a real shot of revitalizing those towns and shattering the vice grip of Capital on land or housing through the relocation of workers to cheaper markets, but the RTO mandate essentially amplified existing crises that much more and robbed them of the chance to rebound.
So no, it’s not as easy as building more housing, it’s also about ensuring those who need housing get access to it first, rather than those who simply seek to extract rent or hold it as an investment hedge.
Again, there’s no silver bullet to this problem.
It is impossible to have a constructive conversation with people who refuse to accept basic facts, and I don't think they have any idea how counterproductive it is.
I would say progressives in the US are anti-wealthy first, leading to poorly thought out policies with obvious second or third order effects that harm the people they so passionately advocate for, but I wouldn't call that anti-poor personally.
This makes no sense, the battle is ultimately between renters and owners of low density housing. Those owners don't care about rent control, they only care about zoning disallowing construction of new rentals. If anything, they're probably happy to see rent control if it means the pressure on cities to upzone is removed.
To me it seems the opposite: Rent control means supply goes down, so available building & land prices go up. These prices going up means an opportunity for builders who are good businessmen because they are going to make a margin on their investment, the bigger the investment the bigger upside.
Another intuition is with rent control it's hard to extract new value from an old building, so that also incentivizes tearing it down and squeezing more units into the land.
In SF, rent control exists on all buildings built before 1979. It appears to me that people who prioritize new builds pay a huge premium for them. I think this particular rule also incentivizes tearing pre 1979 structures down, vs the no rent control newer buildings can continue to have growth in the value extracted from them.
Land is something the government can help with if they choose to do so.
The rent is tied to the price of the apt, and since housing has become and investment category, has increased exponentially.
By controlling rent, you control real estate prices as well, as investors will find it a less attractive asset.
In a free market economy, the cost of things should be controlled by a market equilibrium, so building shouldn't cost more to buy than it is profitable to build tem.
But supply is often restricted by artificial means, meaning prices go up, that's where rent control comes in.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but saying not having rent control while clamping down on construction isn't true to the spirit of the free market.
I've even see a rent controlled apartment in manhattan being used as a storage unit !!!
Rent controlled apartments being held by tenants no longer using them as primary residences is pretty common. A famous case of this was Cleve Jones in San Francisco who tried to make it a huge political deal when his landlord raised his rent to market because he was 1. living in Guerneville full time and 2. subletting the apartment. The media environment is one where it's ok for a master tenant to be a de facto landlord and make money on real estate, as long as it's not the landowner themselves!
Doesnt this happen now because we're all so tethered to HCOL cities? With UBI presumably people would be geographically free, and there is a lot of inexpensive land and housing around the country. Doesnt the capture problem only happen due to scarcity in HCOL cities and thus not an issue?
This is false. People will want to build more on the margin, but that doesn't mean they want to build. If the profitability requirement (hurdle rate for getting investment from institutions) is greater than the the market rent, people will not build even if market rent is high. Indeed, that's what's happened in the last 5 years as costs have increased much faster than rents.
People have been knocking down doors to build in SF for decades, but do not because regulatory capture by homeowners, landlords, and those with below-market rents are happy to keep out new people.
Where and when housing gets built in the US is not merely a market driven decision: you also need to get local permission to build.
Rent control is just one tool that can be used to regulate housing, and it works in conjunction with other tools (e.g. rent control exceptions for new construction).
The U.S. already has an excessively de-regulated housing market, and it clearly has not worked for most people. Anyone that says regulation is bad here is almost certainly protecting their self interests.
CA has a similar issue with prop 13 for housing which I also oppose.
Also it’s silly to say the US housings market doesn’t work for “most people” considering the home ownership rate is above 60%
All that means is that a majority of the population was able to buy a house at some point in time under some conditions. The recent data is clear: people who already have homes, are staying put in them. And a growing portion of people without homes are joining a fairly new class of "forever renters".
The median age of first time home buyers was 33 in 2020. In 2025 it is 40.
That's truly incredible if you think about it. In just 5 years, the median age has increased by 7 years.
Here's another interesting statistic: the percentage of homes bought by first time buyers is down 50% since 2007.
> Rent control is fundamentally unfair and socially undesirable.
I think this is an incredible claim to make. Unfair to who? Undesirable compared to what?
Rent control at it's core is a redistribution mechanism. It favors existing tenants at the expense of property owners.
If you care about low income renters getting displaced by a 40% rent increase, then it is a desirable mechanism.
The benefit of rent control would be turning up the pain on the PE people and driving them out of the market.