Im sure the experts explained how rent controls negatively impacted availability and prices. Having you summarize those explanations would be helpful for the clarity of my response.
Okay, it appears that rent controls have a negative impact on investment in housing. This is because investing becomes less viable and lucrative, leading to reduction in housing quality, supply, and price. This lack of investment resulted in 30,000 lost apartments in New York every year over 11 years in New york as a result of rent controls according to William Tucker.
Assuming im seeing the same expert opinions, over the *long term*, rent controls do hurt prices, availability, and quality of housing. I will conceed that. However, i will argue that they were put in place to resolve a short term problem that required a solution. The consequences of ignoring that problem were far higher than the consequences of rent controls.
This is just me spitballing, but if rent controls lower quality and affordability in the long term, then wouldn’t the problem still be present and worsened ultimately? If the problem can be remedied for a brief moment, but the aftermath worsens the situation then I see little utility in rent controls.
Do you think the free market could have adjusted to that problem? Do you suggest better alternatives?
I am unsure, it seems like government regulation that restricts housing supply is a big factor in increasing housing prices, but federal housing programs have also found success. A pure laissez faire solution will most likely be unsuccessful. Maybe kickback regulation but still maintain some government intervention.