While reducing evictions helps current tenants, it creates an unintended consequence: landlords become more cautious when selecting new ones. Knowing it's harder to remove a problematic tenant, landlords increase screening scrutiny, which can lead to discriminatory practices against applicants perceived as higher risk, making it harder for newcomers to find housing.
Related Insights
The most powerful voting bloc—homeowners—is financially incentivized to oppose new housing development that would lower prices. This political reality means politicians cannot address housing affordability without alienating their core voters, leading to policy stagnation and an intractable crisis.
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.
New York City's most effective tool for reducing evictions wasn't new rental laws, but guaranteeing lawyers for poor tenants. This rebalanced a major power asymmetry (from 1% of tenants having lawyers to near-parity), enabling them to use existing rights and simultaneously deterring landlords from filing weak or frivolous cases in the first place.
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.
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.
Whether one owns a home is a primary determinant of their perception of affordability. Homeowners with fixed mortgages feel more secure due to locked-in housing costs and accumulated equity. Renters, however, face constant rent increases and lack this wealth-building asset, making them feel far more financially insecure.
As a newly single mother, Morgan was denied an affordable one-bedroom apartment due to strict HOA occupancy limits (two people per bedroom). This forced her toward more expensive options she couldn't afford, revealing systemic barriers for single-parent families in the rental market.
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.
