Rent control never stays “mild,” it only gets stricter and stricter

“Mild” rent control is the camel’s nose in the tent.
Rent control pays tenants every month to vote for pro-rent-control lawmakers and to demand lower and lower rents.
Rent control is not a housing policy. It is a political power grab. It mobilizes tenants into a voter bloc that keeps demanding ever-lower rents, demands that politicians ignore at their peril.
“Mild” rent control is always open to amendments.
San Francisco’s 40-year-old rent control law began with a 7% annual rent increase cap. Today, over 125 amendments later, the annual rent increase cap is now 60% of the inflation rate.
During rent control, the Cambridge City Council enacted a requirement that all condos sold after the enactment date had to be tenant-occupied and rent-controlled. It was a huge, huge loss of property value to all the city’s condo owners, but it expanded the tenant voter base and ensured tiny rent increases and stricter and stricter rules.
“Rent stabilization,” “just-cause eviction,” “tenant protections,” “protections for elderly” – all pathways to full-scale rent control.
The reputation of all the well-off tenants in rent-controlled units prompted calls for a “means” or income test. It got nowhere. Why not? Middle-class tenants vote more reliably than lower-income tenants. It’s all about the votes.