[Nursie]

> People do all kinds of acrobatics to avoid giving up their rent controlled apartments.

Ah, it appears I read your up-thread comment inside-out. I thought you were saying landlords would sit on the properties empty. Rather the point you were making is that existing tenants won't give them up.

My fault, but you can see how that interpretation is weird I hope.

> Ok so 2/3rds of the way through your case you've already moved the goalposts.

No goalposts have been moved, your assertion was that renters lose out because there won't be many properties for rent, as they will be occupied by 'legacy' tenants.

My assertion doesn't conflict that specifically - if you create market conditions that are less profitable for landlords you therefore have fewer of them using their greater access to debt to outcompete would-be owner-occupiers. As a result the population of renters drops as they become owners. So pressure comes out of the sector. In some markets demand for homes is already so far above production capacity and available land that there is no conceivable impact of removing 'investors' on the production rate of new dwellings.

Perhaps rent-control is a poor mechanism to achieve this. Other mechanisms exist.