One of the basic principles behind rent control policies is that you're trying to make housing more affordable for some, while at the same time more expensive for others. Economics is the study of choice, and this is a choice, whether it gets talked about or not. Previously, we spoke about a memo from Howard Marks where he describes the impact of rent control in New York City. In economic terms, that impact looks like this:

• Some people who couldn't afford to live in New York City if rents were set by the free market get the opportunity to live in the city (their housing is more affordable)

• Other people who would like to live in New York City and could afford higher rents can't because there are no available apartments (rent controls reduce housing supply)

• And lastly, landlords with unregulated apartments can command higher rents than would be the case if new housing supply were not being discouraged (their housing is more expensive)

Today, let's talk about a recent research paper (June 2025) published in the Journal of Housing Economics called, "Rent control and the supply of affordable housing." What the authors discovered was the following:

• Restrictive rent control reforms are associated with a 10% reduction in the total number of rental units available in a city

• Restrictive rent control reforms led to an increase in the availability of units affordable to extremely low-income households

• This was offset by a decline in the availability of units to other income groups, particularly those at slightly higher affordability thresholds

Once again, we see the economic trade-offs inherent in supply-side interventions like rent control. It's better for some and worse for others. However, governments tend to favor it because it's "free" to them; the costs are borne by landlords and renters at higher affordability thresholds. I'll let all of you comment on whether you think this is good or bad, but regardless, I think it's crucial that we acknowledge the trade-offs being made.

Cover photo by Benjamin Ashton on Unsplash

Here's further evidence that New York City is unlike any other city in the US. According to survey data from the US Census Bureau (via Bloomberg), New York is the only city in the US where the majority of households do not have a car, van, or truck. As of 2024, the figure was 56.7%.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the next two cities on the list — Jersey City and Union City — are just across the Hudson River. So they are highly connected to New York both geographically and economically.

The above chart also includes the median household income for each city. Income is a factor when it comes to car ownership, but I don't think it's the strongest predictor. Some of the highest zero-vehicle cities on this list also have some of the highest median incomes — places like DC, San Francisco, and Cambridge.

The strongest predictor is built form. Once again, urban density, transit access, and a mix of uses are how you give people the option of not driving.

I'm not a runner. I've just never gotten into it. But I can appreciate why people love it, and I imagine that some of the things I love about cycling also happen with running. One of those things is the ability to experience a place while working out.

Here's an example.

I think this recent video by Satisfy does a great job of capturing what it must feel like to effortlessly glide through a city like New York. They also picked the perfect song, so turn your sound on. If you enjoy running and/or NYC, you'll enjoy the video.