Rents are rising everywhere: with continued supply-demand mismatch, shouldn't renter protections be universal?

The Washington Post has an interactive map where you can see the average rent increase for every county in the US ("Rents are rising everywhere. See how much prices are up in your area").

The media are replete with reports on housing rent increases ("Lack of new construction and corporate landlords contributing to skyrocketing rent," CBS "60 Minutes," "Rent jumped 17% since last year, hitting a new record," CNN, "Rents skyrocket near MBTA stops, new report finds," Boston Globe, "Rents Are Roaring Back in New York City," New York Times), including one instance of a rent increase from year to year of over 100% (" 'Coral Gables Woman Hit With 106% Rent Increase After Property Sold To New Landlord: ‘I Couldn’t Believe It'," ).

Apparently, New Orleanians pay upwards of 60% of household income on rent, and average rent increases are 20%+ ("As rents soar in New Orleans area, friction between tenants, landlords increases," New Orleans Times-Picayune), while some communities face high rates of eviction ("Maryvale is home to rising rents — and many of Phoenix's top evicting apartment complexes," Arizona Republic).

The Post has an article, "Stop blaming millennials for the housing crisis."  Who ever said that millennials are the cause of housing price appreciation? While others believe they will be permanently priced out of owning a house ("Renters are growing pessimistic they will ever own a home as prices keep rising," CNN).

Forbes argues that the supply problem is partly a function of a rise of single person households, which they surmise will drop as people take on roommates to reduce housing cost ("Rising Home Prices And Apartment Rents Will End Soon: The Mystery Of The Missing Roommate").

With the supply-demand mismatch not likely to be slackened anytime soon, all places need some form of renter protections.

For example, Connecticut has created "fair rent commissions" ("As rents rise, Connecticut legislators vote to mandate fair rent commissions in some towns," Hartford Courant).  From the article:

At a time of rising rents, Connecticut legislators voted late Wednesday night to mandate fair rent commissions for all communities with more than 25,000 residents. Currently, the commissions are voluntary, and 24 municipalities statewide already have them, legislators said. The total under the bill would be expanded to 45 communities. 

Democrats said the mandatory commissions are needed now to help renters around the state at a time when many rents are increasing as the coronavirus pandemic continues. 

The commissions would have the power to investigate complaints about rents, convene public hearings, issue subpoenas to force people to appear, and eventually force landlords to lower rents under certain circumstances. The commissions can be created in each municipality through action by the local city council or board of selectmen by July 1, 2023.

Tampa is proposing a 60-day notice for rent increases, but not a cap ("Tampa City Council proposes 60-day notice requirement for rental increases," NewsChannel8).

But more should be done.  I argue in part that controls in rent are justified because limits on housing production create the stage for extranormal rents.

From the previous entry "City Rising PBS SoCal series on gentrification":

1.  Most legacy cities were built out by the 1930s, but since then the nation's population has increased  by 1.5x.  (And communities built out after WWII tend to be built much less densely compared to earlier periods, further restricting housing supply.)

2.  Residents typically fight new development.   Even when new supply is added, typically it's high priced because it's built at today's prices for land, labor, and materials.  And because even with new additions to supply, demand is still unmet, prices for housing don't go down.

3.  So prices rise.

4.  More people want to live in the city, which further drives demand.  And ultimately, people with more money are always able to outbid people with less money.  This raises prices and in later stages of change, pushes displacement.  (Usually in earlier stages of neighborhood change, buildings taken by new residents tended to be vacant, so displacement wasn't an issue.)

5.  Since supply is constrained, it's reasonable to put in rent controls and tenant protections.  When demand is greater than supply, desperate people can be taken advantage of by unscrupulous property owners.

6.  But in return for rent controls, residents must agree to new construction of housing--market rate, accessory dwelling units, infill apartments, etc.

7.  To preserve affordability, governments need to be proactive in terms of purchasing properties, fostering land trusts, cooperatives, and other land tenure forms which prioritize maintaining affordability rather than price escalation.

8.  Ideally, priority for reuse of government-owned land should be 100% affordability, while balancing revitalization and other goals.

9.  Regardless, master planning should include specific planning for "social housing" and allocate lots within the master plan to social housing providers.  (Helsinki does this.  Vienna does a form of this.)