Indeed. In particular, I've noticed that nearly all of the cities I've lived in and love (SF, Berkeley, NYC, Montreal) have rent control, whereas many cities that don't have rent control (Dallas, Houston, Phoenix) I've really had no interest in visiting.
The historical justification of rent control is that it allows for security of tenure: hence, even renters can put down roots, and a community can have time to develop. The communities I love seem to have required more time to develop than the cycles of the real estate market would allow. Even if I personally pay more rent, I benefit from those communities.
How do the economists model that? They probably don't. They do answer one question: the housing stock in Dallas and Houston is dramatically more affordable and probably built to a higher standard than the equivalent in SF and NYC, but the quality of life is significantly different (to my personal tastes, sacrificed.) The economists are answering the wrong question.
Rent control does seem to create quite an affordable housing shortage, though. One wonders, however, if ultimately it spurs on a lot of upscale development, since the premium you can charge for new units is so much higher, relatively. (giving you SF's South Beach...)
Edit:
Cato's article on the subject describes the change of Boston and Cambridge from a rent controlled to a free market system, on January 1, 1997.
Rent control creates a shortage of affordable housing. Sure, it might make cities nicer because with rent control only wealthy people can afford housing, so all of the low-income people live elsewhere. Think about living in SF on a teacher or fireman's salary, and compare that to anywhere else.
The problem with arguing about economics is that for some people, this is a desirable outcome -- rent control creates nice cities. For others, the outcome is undesirable -- rent control makes it more difficult for the poor to afford housing.
Nobody can argue that rent control is good or bad as a matter of fact; this is an opinion. That's why economists don't model that, it's like trying to calculate whether chocolate or vanilla is a better flavor.
What can be argued is the stated intention vs. the outcome; when a politician argues that rent control will keep housing affordable for low income people, we can state with a very high degree of certainty that he's wrong.
The ugly side of this is that most people don't care whether the politician has got his facts straight. They want the outcome he's promising.
The historical justification of rent control is that it allows for security of tenure: hence, even renters can put down roots, and a community can have time to develop. The communities I love seem to have required more time to develop than the cycles of the real estate market would allow. Even if I personally pay more rent, I benefit from those communities.
How do the economists model that? They probably don't. They do answer one question: the housing stock in Dallas and Houston is dramatically more affordable and probably built to a higher standard than the equivalent in SF and NYC, but the quality of life is significantly different (to my personal tastes, sacrificed.) The economists are answering the wrong question.
Rent control does seem to create quite an affordable housing shortage, though. One wonders, however, if ultimately it spurs on a lot of upscale development, since the premium you can charge for new units is so much higher, relatively. (giving you SF's South Beach...)
Edit:
Cato's article on the subject describes the change of Boston and Cambridge from a rent controlled to a free market system, on January 1, 1997.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html
Can anyone describe the change in vibe from before January 1, 1997 to now?