How A Rent Freeze Impacts The Availability Of Apartments

On Sunday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the impact the decision of the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) in New York City to set the annual rent adjustment for rent-stabilized apartments at 0% for both one-year and two-year lease renewals commencing October 1, 2026, through September 30, 2027.

The article reports:

Six of the nine board members were appointed by Mamdani before the vote. Owner representative Christina Smyth resigned hours before the final vote, calling the process predetermined. The lone dissent came from Arpit Gupta, a holdover appointee from former Mayor Eric Adams.

So what will be the impact?

The article explains:

A rent freeze does not simply cap future increases. It widens the gap between what a rent-stabilized unit can legally charge and what it could command on the open market.

As that gap grows, a landlord’s financial incentive shifts away from continuing to rent the unit and toward selling it to an owner-occupant, converting it to a condominium, combining units, or leaving it vacant rather than re-renting it at below-market rates. Each of these outcomes effectively removes the apartment from the rental market, even though the building itself remains.

A tenant paying far below market rent has little financial incentive to leave, so a unit can stop circulating in the rental market while remaining continuously occupied. This “lock-in” effect is among the most consistently documented findings in rent control research.

Stanford economist Rebecca Diamond, with Tim McQuade and Franklin Qian, studied San Francisco’s 1994 rent control expansion using a natural experiment involving near-identical buildings split by a construction-date cutoff. They found that landlords reduced the rental housing supply by 15%, chiefly by selling units to owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. The same study found that rent control increased renters’ likelihood of staying at the same address by nearly 20%, reduced citywide renter mobility by 20%, and drove a 5.1% citywide rent increase as the lost supply pushed up market rents. A companion paper found the supply reduction was greater among corporate landlords, which have greater access to capital and can more easily exit the rental market.

The free market is always the best way to provide any product to consumers. Landlords do not own buildings just to own buildings–their aim is to make a profit. When the free market determines the cost of something, eventually the cost settles to a point where both the consumer and the seller are rewarded.

President Biden’s Plan For Inflation

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about one way the Biden administration plans to fight inflation. It’s a plan guaranteed to be rife with unintended consequences.

The article reports:

Enough about Joe Biden’s mindless nastiness. I’ll take my cue from Donald Trump and Biden himself and focus on policy this morning.

Specifically, let’s talk about Joe Biden’s mindless and nasty demagoguery on economic policies. Faced with the electoral consequences of his corrosive inflationary wave, especially in shelter costs, Biden has to come up with some promised policy solution. And that is … federal rent control:

According to the Associated Press:

President Joe Biden is ready to propose a 5% cap on annual rent increases for tenants of major landlords as he tries to show he’s doing something about the high cost of housing, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The proposal, to be announced while the president visits Nevada on Tuesday, is being championed by Biden in the middle of a tense presidential campaign and a time when housing costs have been a major driver of overall inflation.

Hasn’t this man ever studied economics?

Housing costs are a major driver of overall inflation. That is true, but let’s examine why. Interest rates are double what they were under President Trump. According to U.S. News, the interest rate on November 19, 2020, for a 30-year mortgage was 2.72 percent. A loan of $250,000 would be paid back at the rate of $1,016.63 per month. On May 16, 2024, the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is 7.02 percent. That loan would be paid back at a rate of $1,666.62 per month. The cost of the actual house you would be financing has also increased significantly in the past four years. So exactly what would be the result of federal rent control? First of all, find rent control in the U.S. Constitution. It’s not there. The 10th Amendment does not include rent control.

In January 2020, The Manhattan Institute posted an article about rent control.

Here are some highlights from the article:

Rent Control Makes It Harder to Find an Apartment

    • Cities that implement rent control see substantial declines in the availability of rental housing.
    • Locking people in to existing rental units leaves many renters in apartments much larger or much smaller than they would prefer.
    • In some cities, waitlists for rent-controlled housing are decades-long.

Rent Control Does Not Increase Diversity

    • Rent control benefits incumbent tenants at the expense of migrants hoping to relocate to a city. In New York City, white tenants have disproportionately benefited relative to black or Hispanic tenants, and landlords give preference to older and childless households.
    • Many of rent control’s benefits typically flow to higher-income households even as rent control drives up rents for everyone else.

Rent Control Degrades the Quality of Its Beneficiaries’ Housing

    • Rent control reduces investment in a property’s quality and causes a city’s housing stock to decay.
    • By suppressing property values, rent control also reduces tax revenue to municipalities, hindering their ability to provide essential services.

It will not decrease inflation, but it will increase government control.