Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it.

To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.

'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).

The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany.

The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.

> 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality

So disconnected from reality that it beggars belief.

Anytime you put two or more adult people into a relationship together and at least one person feels like they do not have the option to leave if things get bad (e.g. landlord feels like the tenant is wrecking the property but has no right to evict, tenant feels like landlord is not taking care of maintenance but feels pressured to stay due to artificially low rent), the result is toxic suffering.

loading story #47436893
> 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation.

Nope, you don't. You just do your best to foresee that outcome in advance before renting and pick a house you can afford. And if rents start to move against you, you plan to move out well in advance of getting "kicked out" by unaffordable prices. But that's actually easier than the status quo since no rent control means (1) lower rents overall for the same quality housing! and (2) everyone gets a home for the right price, there is no hidden privilege or lottery aspect to it. Of course it should be paired with higher property taxes or LVT so the rent itself isn't just value-capture by landlords, but that's politically doable. Just a matter of not picking the wrong political fight.

> To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.

Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset.

> The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen

You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?