Some people make the following economic argument: rent control is bad because it discourages investment in new builds. I would find that argument more convincing if we didn’t have suffocating NIMBY laws that prevented the construction of new supply, often advocated by the same homeowners who don’t want rent control.
If the government were willing to take a more direct role in home building, discouraging private investment could work out for the best. Vienna has had rent control for a long time which kept inner city prices low. This allowed the city to purchase that land for cheap and develop public housing which 60% of the city now lives in. Today it’s rated the most livable city on the planet. What sets it apart from the cities below it is precisely housing and cost of living. Even the housing that is private is cheaper because it must be competitive with the public option.
After all, the commodification of housing is the root of our problem. Why lean into that?
100% agree. I think this goal is not as far off as it seems either. It’s kind of like a “public option” in healthcare. It keeps the private sector honest, and if the public option is successful enough, it can incrementally provide more and more of the housing supply.
Add comment