i see nobody read the paper.

> Similarly, we need to consider any one-time confounding events in control cities. Most notably, Minneapolis would be a natural control for St. Paul. However, in addition to the ballot measure on rent control, Minneapolis’s ballot also included referenda on mayoral power and policing. These confounding events mean that if property values in St. Paul changed relative to Minneapolis, we could not attribute the change to rent control.

their mistake is that they excluded Minneapolis for a bullshit reason here. you might as well do the analysis and then tell us. of course, they did, and found all the same effects as st. paul despite no rent control, so they chose not to talk about it.

This makes me wonder if these cities are a good study subject in the first place.

Is this a metro area with serious rental price pressure where rent stabilization is greatly altering the market conditions, or is housing so available to begin with that it’s more of a feel-good legislation that doesn’t shift prices around?

It looks like from a quick search that over half of people in this metro area own their own home.

I imagine that rent control in many Midwestern metros is effectively pointless. The rent is already being controlled by flat or declining populations, cheap land, and high homeownership rates.