Rent control is the wrong solution to the right problem (ie affordable housing).

It creates all sorts of problems that wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, if you've been in a rent control house or apartment for 10+ years and are paying significantly less, what happens if you want to move? Or just need a bigger place? It's a huge impeediment to mobility and flexibility.

Also, you have an adversarial relationship with your landlord. They want you to leave so they can raise the rent. They'll skimp on maintenance, turn off the heat (even when it's illegal) and generally make your life miserable until you leave.

The solution to these problems is social housing, meaning the government becomes a significant supplier of affordable, quality housing. The very wealthy and the real estate industry don't want this however because it will decrease profits.

> Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power,

In the literature, there is a distinction made between private property and personal property. I'm fine with people owning their own home if they want. That's personal property. Private property is when we allow people and corporations to hoard housing. I'm all for making it financiall punitive to own more than one house.

▲

bluegatty 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it.

To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.

'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).

The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany.

The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.

	▲	solatic an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality So disconnected from reality that it beggars belief. Anytime you put two or more adult people into a relationship together and at least one person feels like they do not have the option to leave if things get bad (e.g. landlord feels like the tenant is wrecking the property but has no right to evict, tenant feels like landlord is not taking care of maintenance but feels pressured to stay due to artificially low rent), the result is toxic suffering.
	▲	jmyeet 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'. Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset. > The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?