Rent control laws should be paired with laws that boost new housing construction, especially housing not aimed at the highest income segments

The article in yesterday's Washington Post, "Housing advocates push for more aggressive rent-control measures in D.C.," reminds me of something I've been thinking about since coverage about rent control initiatives in California ("How California's tenants won statewide rent control," Capital & Main), Oregon ("Rent Control Is Now The Law In Oregon," Oregon Public Broadcasting), and an update of the law in New York City ("Landmark Deal Reached on Rent Protections for Tenants in N.Y.," New York Times).

From the Post article:

The District’s rent-control law, which sets the rate at which rents can be raised by property owners, will lapse Dec. 31, 2020. Last month, all 14 members of the D.C. Council signed on to support an amendment to the 1985 law that would extend it an additional 10 years — to Dec. 31, 2030.

But a coalition of 17 groups that include labor unions, religious congregations and community organizations fears that in a city with some of the highest rates of gentrification and displacement in the nation, extending a 34-year-old law without making substantive changes will fall short of residents’ needs.

The group unveiled its political platform Wednesday in front of an apartment building on Hamilton Street NW, where activists said tenants were subject to 30 percent rent hikes after a new building owner sought to offset the costs of repairs and renovations.

(The DC Tenants Union doesn't seem to have a webpage at the moment, so I can't find a list of the platform for the "Renters Rights Campaign.")

Or how, the Trump Administration proposes tying transit system funding to local land policies favoring intensification ("New Bill Would Tie Federal Transit Funding to Local Zoning," Reason Foundation).

To me, the justification for rent control comes from the fact that residents tend to be against intensification and new housing construction in many different ways and this is reflected in planning, zoning, and building regulations, all of which combine to reduce the supply of housing.

Property owners are the intended and unintended beneficiaries from restrictions on housing supply. Housing values appreciate extranormally as do rents.

So rent control regulations are a reasonable constraint on what during past wars were called "excess profits" -- that is, much higher than normal profits resulting from extraordinary circumstances.  Then, such profits were taxed at very high rates.

WRT rents, instead of extranormal taxes on profits, price controls have been introduced.

But now I am starting to think that in return for the legalization by states of the creation and imposition of local rent control regulations (property interests try to get laws passed at the state level which preclude local rent control), localities should have to agree to reduce restrictions on adding to the housing supply.

From the LA Times article "Rent control helps, but it can't fix California's housing crisis":

But rent control is no panacea for the housing crisis because it does not create new units.  It should be considered along with other policies such as housing vouchers, relaxation of zoning laws to spur construction and better public transportation infrastructure. Mandatory inclusionary zoning ... is another strategy worth exploring.

Because ideally, there wouldn't be a need for price controls, because the housing supply and housing demand would be roughly balanced.

Of course, in places where demand is extra normal and even with fewer regulations and restrictions housing supply is constrained, price controls may still be necessary.

=======
Separately, the Center for American Progress has a campaign on legal representation for tenants in eviction proceedings.

-- "A Right to Counsel Is a Right to a Fighting Chance: The Importance of Legal Representation in Eviction Proceedings," article
-- Full report