The history of rent control in New York City shows how price caps disincentivize maintenance and new construction. This leads to a death spiral of deteriorating housing stock, supply shortages, abandonment, and ultimately higher market rents for any new, uncontrolled units.
Related Insights
The most effective way to lower housing prices is to increase supply. Instead of artificially freezing rents, which discourages investment, policymakers should remove regulations that make building new units difficult. More construction creates more competition, which naturally drives down prices for everyone.
Counterintuitively, the best multifamily markets aren't high-population-growth cities like Austin. These attract too much new supply, capping rent growth. The optimal strategy is to find markets with barriers to entry and minimal new construction, as this creates a durable runway for rental increases.
The difference in home price trends between US regions is not about weather or jobs, but housing supply. States in the South and West that permit widespread new construction are seeing prices fall, while "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) states in the Northeast and Midwest face shortages and rising prices.
Price caps can devastate small-time landlords, like retirees dependent on rental income, by setting rent below their costs for taxes and maintenance. This turns the property into a money-losing asset that is impossible to sell, effectively destroying the owner's life savings and retirement plan.
High home prices should not be interpreted as a sign of a healthy market. Instead, they indicate a system that is malfunctioning as designed, where artificial scarcity created by policy and corporate buying drives prices up. This reflects a structural failure, not robust economic demand.
Severe rent freezes can make property maintenance and ownership financially unviable. In extreme cases where an asset becomes a liability, the only way for owners to recoup their investment may be to burn the building down and collect insurance money, a perverse outcome of a well-intentioned policy.
Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.
New rent control laws don't just limit rent; they fundamentally cap the equity upside for real estate investors. By limiting potential cash flow growth from an asset, these policies make building or upgrading apartment buildings less attractive. This discourages the very capital investment needed to solve the housing supply crisis.
Politicians at all levels actively restrict housing supply through zoning and other policies. This is not incompetence, but a deliberate strategy to protect and inflate property values, which satisfies the large and reliable homeowner voting bloc, ensuring re-election at the expense of renters and future buyers.
The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.
