[pmoriarty]

"Rent control is a failed experiment. All it does is force land lords to massively increase rent amounts when someone moves out to account for multi-year market increases."

Forces them? As if they wouldn't raise rents as much as they felt they could get away with anyway.

Or as if without rent control landlords would keep rents low, merely out of the goodness of their hearts.

[aero142]

This isn't as obvious as you make it sound. If all landlord realized they will have a future loss, they are looking for a way to recoup this. If they believe other landlords are going to do the same thing, they know they can raise prices without getting undercut because others know the same thing they do. Quips about the goodness of their hearts isn't as deep a thought as you think.

[JamesBarney]

In commercial real estate there are two types of contracts.

I agree to rent this place for a year.

I agree to rent this place for a year, and I'm paying for the option to re-rent it at the same rate for the next 5 years.

You can imagine that in commercial real estate one of these contracts is more expensive per month than the other. Especially in markets with rising rents.

Basically rent control bans the first type of contract, and requires the second. And therefore increases rental rates.

[lern_too_spel]

It is an economic certainty. If more of the housing supply is tied up by rent controlled tenants who won't move out, supply and demand places the equilibrium price for available units far higher than it would be without rent control.

When you institute rent control, you save existing teachers some money, but when they retire, good luck finding new teachers willing to work in the new market with much higher rents.