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.