Imagine a respected, major media outlet publishing a news article on vaccines or climate change that doesn't once mention the majority view of scientists. Wouldn't happen, right? So why don't the same standards apply when the topic is rent control?
I'm not the "anti-mainstream media" type. I spent the first few years of my career in media and I know most journalists are honest people who want to make a difference. But it baffles me that major media outlets -- like this recent story in The New York Times -- continue to make the mistake of applying a different set of rules when it comes to rental housing. How does this happen?
Don't blame "left-wing bias" because that's not what this is. On the topic of rent control, most liberal and even socialist economists share the same view as conservative economists. You've probably heard the famous quote from Swedish socialist economist Assar Lindbeck: "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing." Or his peer Gunnar Myrdal, who said: "Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision."
Here's what the science says:
1) A survey of 464 economists found that 93% agreed that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." (AER)
2) A Stanford study found that rent control in San Francisco reduced rental supply, led to higher rents on future renters, created gentrification, and reduced housing options for all but the most wealthy people. (Diamond)
3) Numerous studies have shown that rent control incentivizes higher-income earners to stay put, reducing availability for lower-income earners. One famous one was former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who maintained a $475/month rent controlled apartment even while living in the mayoral mansion. This leads to a misallocation of housing resources. (Olsen, Gyourko and Linneman).
4) Rent control can "lead to the decay of housing stock" due to lack of funds to maintain rentals. (Downs, Sims).
5) An MIT study found that when rent controls were REMOVED from Cambridge MA in the 1990s, rental housing quality improved as maintenance got funded, crime was reduced, and nearby property values improved. (Autor, Palmer, and Pathak)
6) Rent control reduces supply. When St. Paul, MN, adopted rent control, multifamily building permits plunged 47% in St. Paul while rising 11% in nearby Minneapolis and rising in most of the U.S., too. (U.S. HUD data)
7) Studies show that "upper-income renters gained more than lower-income renters" from rent control. (Ahern & Giacoletti)
Trust the science. Rent control is proven to backfire on those it's intended to protect. The one and only solution: Build, build, build. That means reforms to zoning and impact fees and taxes to incentivize housing development of all types. It includes subsidies and tax abatements for income-restricted affordable housing and attainable housing. It can include demand-side benefits like vouchers and rental assistance, too.
And you know what: That case study is playing out right now! Rents are falling in the highest-supplied markets DESPITE high demand... all because there's even more supply. Shouldn't that fact be included in any article on rental affordability?
Critics will claim there's science favoring rent control, too, but that's misleading. For one, even anti-vaxxers stake claim to research to support their views... but that doesn't mean that the research is of equal weight or as widely supported by scientists as pro-vaccine research.
Furthermore, a lot of pro-rent control research is centered around the negative impact of displacement; and you know what, they're right about that! We can all agree displacement and homelessness are bad for renters and for society, and we should work to reduce it. But is rent control the best solution? What are the side effects? What are the costs-- not to landlords, but to other renters and potential renters? Cynics suggest landlords bear all the costs, but that's demonstrably false.
This is where the science is quite clear. The abundance of research shows us those costs are enormous, ultimately hurting an even greater number of low-income households. In the words of Stanford economics professor Dr. Rebecca Diamond: "And it’s that next low-income tenant that wants to live in the city, that low-income tenant is going to have a very hard time finding an affordable option, because now there’s going to be less rental housing, the prices that that low-income tenant are going to face when they want to initially move in are going to be higher than they would have been absent rent control."
Like with vaccines and climate change, the science should be front and center in media articles.
I'm not the "anti-mainstream media" type. I spent the first few years of my career in media and I know most journalists are honest people who want to make a difference. But it baffles me that major media outlets -- like this recent story in The New York Times -- continue to make the mistake of applying a different set of rules when it comes to rental housing. How does this happen?
Don't blame "left-wing bias" because that's not what this is. On the topic of rent control, most liberal and even socialist economists share the same view as conservative economists. You've probably heard the famous quote from Swedish socialist economist Assar Lindbeck: "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing." Or his peer Gunnar Myrdal, who said: "Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision."
Here's what the science says:
1) A survey of 464 economists found that 93% agreed that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." (AER)
2) A Stanford study found that rent control in San Francisco reduced rental supply, led to higher rents on future renters, created gentrification, and reduced housing options for all but the most wealthy people. (Diamond)
3) Numerous studies have shown that rent control incentivizes higher-income earners to stay put, reducing availability for lower-income earners. One famous one was former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who maintained a $475/month rent controlled apartment even while living in the mayoral mansion. This leads to a misallocation of housing resources. (Olsen, Gyourko and Linneman).
4) Rent control can "lead to the decay of housing stock" due to lack of funds to maintain rentals. (Downs, Sims).
5) An MIT study found that when rent controls were REMOVED from Cambridge MA in the 1990s, rental housing quality improved as maintenance got funded, crime was reduced, and nearby property values improved. (Autor, Palmer, and Pathak)
6) Rent control reduces supply. When St. Paul, MN, adopted rent control, multifamily building permits plunged 47% in St. Paul while rising 11% in nearby Minneapolis and rising in most of the U.S., too. (U.S. HUD data)
7) Studies show that "upper-income renters gained more than lower-income renters" from rent control. (Ahern & Giacoletti)
Trust the science. Rent control is proven to backfire on those it's intended to protect. The one and only solution: Build, build, build. That means reforms to zoning and impact fees and taxes to incentivize housing development of all types. It includes subsidies and tax abatements for income-restricted affordable housing and attainable housing. It can include demand-side benefits like vouchers and rental assistance, too.
And you know what: That case study is playing out right now! Rents are falling in the highest-supplied markets DESPITE high demand... all because there's even more supply. Shouldn't that fact be included in any article on rental affordability?
Critics will claim there's science favoring rent control, too, but that's misleading. For one, even anti-vaxxers stake claim to research to support their views... but that doesn't mean that the research is of equal weight or as widely supported by scientists as pro-vaccine research.
Furthermore, a lot of pro-rent control research is centered around the negative impact of displacement; and you know what, they're right about that! We can all agree displacement and homelessness are bad for renters and for society, and we should work to reduce it. But is rent control the best solution? What are the side effects? What are the costs-- not to landlords, but to other renters and potential renters? Cynics suggest landlords bear all the costs, but that's demonstrably false.
This is where the science is quite clear. The abundance of research shows us those costs are enormous, ultimately hurting an even greater number of low-income households. In the words of Stanford economics professor Dr. Rebecca Diamond: "And it’s that next low-income tenant that wants to live in the city, that low-income tenant is going to have a very hard time finding an affordable option, because now there’s going to be less rental housing, the prices that that low-income tenant are going to face when they want to initially move in are going to be higher than they would have been absent rent control."
Like with vaccines and climate change, the science should be front and center in media articles.
For those who are taking my comments out of context:
https://x.com/jayparsons/status/1762670561539330544
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
