You may have heard rent control mentioned more often in the current political discourse. As runaway inflation took hold through questionable economic policies, many people have struggled to pay their bills and cover their costs of living. As a result, impassioned, but misguided, activists are pushing for rent control to be adopted as a general policy for the housing market. However, there is a lack of basic economic information available to the public about the devastating consequences any form of rent control brings to the issue of housing.
Any form of rent control, no matter how it is packaged, inhibits free market forces from correct themselves through supply and demand. In fact, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is proposing a rent control policy capping increases at no more than 10%, which is currently under review by the City Council. The fact of the matter is that supporters of affordable housing should be against rent control, or “rent stabilization,” as Mayor Wu’s administration has tried to rebrand it. As a general rule of thumb, any national, state, or local policy that has failed multiple times but goes through a “rebrand” is always cause for an immediate pause and review.
What is rent control?
Rent control is a government policy that sets a price ceiling for the rent that homeowners can charge their tenants. It results in artificially low rents, which may seem attractive to tenants, but can have serious consequences for housing providers and tenants alike. The ceiling is set by local government officials, and ultimately strains homeowners’ ability to put proper monies back into their properties— leading to disrepair and lowering safety and health standards. While it may appear to help tenants in the short run, rent control does not resolve the core drivers of the current affordability crisis.
There are so many factors to consider in the costs of housing: skilled labor shortages, energy costs, material costs, and ever-spiraling taxes. In fact,…