The actual studies on this question in MA, which I happened to link earlier in this thread, disprove your claims here (ending rent control did not increase production and similar studies in other cities found similar).Your entire post is just stating what you think I believe and I’m the one not discussing in good faith?
Rent control does not increase housing production nor does it lead to increasing quality of housing stock. More demand for housing will increase housing production as we see in Boston. If only new housing construction wasn’t constantly subject to reduced height limits, lower density and so-called community benefits when housing construction itself is the community benefit.
I have already gone over several times (including before you even made the point):
also:Not working from whose perspective? Landlords? Because everyone I know with a rent control apartment in NYC or Berlin (Before the unfortunate repeal) loves it and anyone who doesn't have it wishes they did. Even studies that are often claimed to be evidence against rent control, show it is very effective in terms of stabilizing housing for renters (thus helping prevent displacement which is a huge issue in this city right now).
This study and this study on the end of rent control in Massachusetts both found that ending it did not increase construction (as is often claimed by opponents of rent control) but it did reduce the length of time tenants lived in their homes, and increase rent prices.
This study based in NJ found that rent control increased the number of available units.
This study from Colombia Business school found substantial benefits to rent control.
This study from Stanford on the Bay Area found that it effectively limited rent hikes, and did not effect new construction and the only downside was landlords using loopholes to convert to condos.
An argument for rent control in the Urbanist
Effectively the downsides are overblown and can be prevented or at least alleviated by closing loopholes. The upsides are much less acknowledged because it is a policy that benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, and the latter has a lot more money to fund biased studies by ideologically aligned or just straight up bought think tanks. For some serious problems we have in this city such as rapidly raising rent prices and displacement of individuals and communities it can be very effective.
You have never engaged in good faith based on the evidence you stake your position based on what materially benefits yourself and those in your position and call anyone who isn't rich/a multiple property owner insane for understanding what might benefit them. You have shown no interest in a good faith discussion you can be mad I am not interested in having one with you, I don't care. I provided evidence for my claims. You nor anyone else who seems to ultimately agree with you has done the same. You have given soundbites based on an Econ 101 level understanding of supply and demand. I think that will be pretty obvious to anyone looking on who isn't already a committed devotee of the market god and praying at the shrine of Friedman.Several studies show the latter not to be the case. The recent boom in both came about 2 decades after rent control ended, and cannot be said to be caused by it. This is atrocious reasoning on your part, especially in response to peer reviewed studies disproving your claim before you even made it.