Live data from Hacker News

The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

rhawa.org

71–80 of 161 posts

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#71
post #61

Without injection of new housing stock by the state, by coops or other agencies than BTR capital investors, it's highly likely to be a weaponised outcome to prove rent controls don't work. If the construction strike by commercial investors is replaced by public housing then the better outcome can emerge.

> If the construction strike by commercial investors is replaced by public housing

Aren't you just describing "the projects"[1]? Is that a better outcome?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#72

People like to look at rent control from a purely economic lens, but the sociopolitical aspect must also be considered. A suboptimal economic outcome might actually be optimal when all factors are considered. Social harmony and a feeling of hope for underprivileged residents are hard to value, but we must admit that they do have value.

That assumes rent controlled units actually benefit mostly the underprivileged. They don't. They create a strong incentive to keep a flat indefinitely. It's not unheard of for a person to continue renting a rent frozen apartment after they buy a house because the rent is so cheap - effectively it's a second home. There's also plenty of corruption. "Knowing a guy" is one of the best ways to get a rent controlled unit…

> "Knowing a guy" is one of the best ways to get a rent controlled unit since the wait time can be years.

That's how military housing works. There's an underground "economy" of favors.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#73
post #3

> This paper studies the effects of rent control on the housing wealth of renters, landlords, and homeowners. Over the nine months following the passage of rent control in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2021, average property values fell by 4.4% to 5.8%. This seems like too short-term a study. The argument against artificially holding prices down is that people won't produce as much as they would otherwise and people won't b…

The key to understanding the effects of rent control is understanding the Law of Supply and Demand. Artificially holding down rents will result in housing shortages. The lower the rent controlled price, the worse the shortage. If the rent goes too low, the building owner will stop doing maintenance. Eventually, the building gets abandoned.

There is a good paper about the effects:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...

Basically if you're in a "rent controlled" unit, you benefit, but live in a dumpster, because the owner don't have the reason to invest in the place.

But the supply of new units is down & all other renters are paying higher rates, because there is no incentive to build new units. NIMBY-ism has the same effect.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#74

[flagged]

If you don't mind investors being unwilling to do new construction. It's a band-aid on a much bigger problem.

I don't mind ending the type of construction that's recently been occurring.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Since the source paper was written, St. Paul has realized that this is the case and rolled back rent control on new construction to hopefully solve the problem. ( https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/05/08/st-paul-walks-back-... )

So they're losing out on a few dozen new units, but it is made up for by renters across the board having to pay less rent and thus having more money to put into the economy? Seems like a good trade to me?

[deleted]

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#76

When Boston ended rent control in the late 90s, all of the sudden the landlords invested in their goldmine buildings and generally improved the city. It sucks for those trying to rent or buy (including me, I paid 60% more for a house in 2002 than what it was worth in 1996), but the city has certainly had a renaissance. IMHO, the problem now is bad zoning. The rich car-centric suburbs are preventing denser housing- to…

The Massachusetts law requiring cities/towns to build high-density housing around commuter rail stops neglected one thing. There's no open space. To build high-density housing, the city or state would have to buy out the existing landowners, demolish the existing property, and then build anew. They also neglected the effect of travel time on behavior. Back in the day, I was commuting from a rich suburb to Cambridge,…

> Sadly, the billionaires would be untouched.

Why would you conclude that? Billionaires have their money invested in the same things as your 401k, etc.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#77
post #46

> Over the nine months following the passage of rent control in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2021, average property values fell by 4.4% to 5.8% This to me is the big one. So in addition to rents being more affordable (even if wealthier renters capture most of the gains) limiting the rental market profits also makes houses more affordable to buy? The paper is trying to argue this is bad, but I’m not seeing it. It’s almost l…

Counterintuitively, collecting rent is not considered "rent-seeking" by the econ definition, eg: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp

Collecting rent maps exactly to that definition.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Since the source paper was written, St. Paul has realized that this is the case and rolled back rent control on new construction to hopefully solve the problem. ( https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/05/08/st-paul-walks-back-... )

So they're losing out on a few dozen new units, but it is made up for by renters across the board having to pay less rent and thus having more money to put into the economy? Seems like a good trade to me?

Because then the units fall into disrepair (because they no longer make sense to maintain) leading to less supply leading to lower availability of units leading to higher cost of housing.

See what happened in NYC regarding the consolidation of housing units.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#79
post #3

> This paper studies the effects of rent control on the housing wealth of renters, landlords, and homeowners. Over the nine months following the passage of rent control in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2021, average property values fell by 4.4% to 5.8%. This seems like too short-term a study. The argument against artificially holding prices down is that people won't produce as much as they would otherwise and people won't b…

The key to understanding the effects of rent control is understanding the Law of Supply and Demand. Artificially holding down rents will result in housing shortages. The lower the rent controlled price, the worse the shortage. If the rent goes too low, the building owner will stop doing maintenance. Eventually, the building gets abandoned.

On the flip side section 8 acts as a price floor.

No easy solutions here. I do think if rent exceeds half your earnings as a minimum wage worker that’s a failure of the social contract.

Want people to have kids, make it possible to raise them on a working class wage.

Rationally , since it’s impossible to raise a family on what most people make , people aren’t making people anymore. Not at replacement rates anyway.

Re: The redistribution of housing wealth caused by rent control (2023) [pdf]

#80
post #34

One effect of rent-control that I have observed in San Francisco is that well-off people get into baller apartments with the intention of keeping them forever. Over time the rental rate gets inflated away to almost nothing, the person buys a mansion in suburbia, keeping their rent controlled penthouse as a pied-a-terre. In theory landlords would be looking to petition for eviction but that's usually not what happens.

> In theory landlords would be looking to petition for eviction but that's usually not what happens. Are landlords allowed to increase rents when the tenant changes? If so then yes, I would expect them to do so, so if they don't, there needs to be some other explanation. If they don't, then obviously they'll prefer to keep their long-term, pays-on-time, probably-not-wrecking-the-place existing tenant.

Rents reset to market for new tenants. While it's true some well-off people hang onto apartments while living elsewhere, this is really rare. Turn over is usually quite high. Rent control mostly effects small multi-tenant buildings and especially in-laws, where 1 or 2 hangers-on can really mess with the economics.

My mother lives in a 12 unit building in a very nice SF neighborhood. Only 2 people have been there longer than 10 years, and only 1 other longer than 5.[1] The building was recently sold for only $2 million. The low price is less because of rent control, more because of all the other regulations that make it very costly to renovate or rebuild, lowering the value of the property. That building could/should be replaced with something having twice the number of units, but it never will be. In theory it should be trivial to have a system where existing tenants could be relocated while preserving their rent, but that would only work if there were much more supply coming online creating more structural vacancies so people could be shuffled around efficiently.

I think rent control is an acceptable policy in so far as it directly addresses people's need for a sense of security that simply can't be met by promises of low housing prices in the future. It does come with a cost, a kind of tax, but taxes can be justified. There are much more costly housing policies than rent control. However, those policies unfortunately tend to coexist with rent control (often preexist), so it's really just a mess.

[1] Years ago there used to be 2 tenants who had moved to and lived in Marin, but kept their units because they worked in the city and didn't want to commute every weekday. One was a dentist. But they moved out years ago. The building had no dedicated parking, so that may have factored into their decisions to finally leave. Dealing with that kind of hassle probably worked well (or at least sounded better) when they were younger, less so once they established a life in Marin, even if they continued to commute into the city. And it's not like housing is cheaper elsewhere in the Bay Area, so the extra expense is difficult to justify even for well-off professionals.

Post reply on HN