See where you actually stand.

CONTEXT

The housing affordability crisis has become a defining challenge for cities across the United States, with rising rents outpacing wage growth in nearly every major metropolitan area. The dominant policy response among urban planners and many local governments has been a supply-side approach: build more housing, particularly market-rate and luxury units, with the expectation that increased inventory will eventually moderate prices across the board. This “YIMBY” (Yes In My Backyard) movement has gained significant traction in cities like Austin, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Minneapolis, Minnesota, where zoning reforms and streamlined permitting have led to notable increases in housing construction. The logic is straightforward: when supply increases relative to demand, prices should stabilize or fall.

However, the situation is more complicated than this simple supply-and-demand model suggests. Housing is not a perfectly elastic commodity—it is location-specific, slow to build, and subject to significant market power concentration among landlords. In high-growth cities that have embraced building, such as Austin and Las Vegas, rents have continued to climb dramatically, with some tenants reporting increases of 25% or more in a single year. This creates a paradox: even as new units come online, existing tenants face displacement pressures that new construction alone cannot address in the short to medium term. The question becomes whether cities must choose between building more housing and protecting current residents from rent spikes, or whether these two approaches can coexist as complementary strategies.

PROBLEM

The core problem is that supply-side housing strategies, while necessary for long-term affordability, fail to protect tenants from sudden and extreme rent increases in the near term. In cities like Austin, which has been a national model for pro-housing policies, rents increased by over 30% between 2020 and 2023 according to data from Zillow and the Austin Board of Realtors. Similarly, Las Vegas saw rent increases of approximately 25% during the same period, despite significant new construction. These spikes are not anomalies—they reflect a structural reality where landlords can exploit market tightness, seasonal demand, or property turnover to impose increases that far outpace general inflation or wage growth.

The harm of this inaction is severe and measurable. When rents jump by 25-40% in a single year, working families are forced into difficult choices: cut spending on food and healthcare, take on additional debt, or relocate to cheaper—often more distant—neighborhoods. This displacement disrupts communities, increases commute times, strains school districts, and can lead to homelessness for the most vulnerable. The cost of inaction is not merely financial but social: neighborhoods lose cohesion, long-term residents are pushed out, and the economic diversity that sustains vibrant cities erodes. Without rent control, even a successful building boom leaves current tenants exposed to the whims of the rental market.

PROPOSED SOLUTION

The proposed solution is to enact rent control policies that cap annual rent increases at a reasonable percentage—typically between 3% and 7% depending on local inflation rates—while simultaneously continuing to pursue aggressive new housing construction. This is not an either/or choice but a both/and strategy. The policy would apply to all rental units built before a certain date (often exempting new construction for 10-15 years to avoid discouraging development), with provisions for landlords to petition for higher increases if they can demonstrate significant capital improvements or cost increases.

Rejected alternatives include relying solely on market-rate construction to eventually lower rents (which takes 5-10 years and leaves current tenants unprotected), implementing only voluntary landlord-tenant mediation programs (which lack enforcement teeth), or adopting vacancy taxes alone (which address speculation but not active rent spikes). The implementation machinery would involve a local rent stabilization board, annual adjustment calculations tied to the Consumer Price Index, and a dispute resolution process for landlord hardship petitions. Cities like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have operated such systems for decades, demonstrating that rent control can coexist with new construction when properly designed.

EXPECTED IMPACT

If enacted, the primary beneficiaries would be current tenants in existing rental housing, particularly low- and middle-income households who are most vulnerable to displacement. Rent control would provide predictable housing costs, allowing families to budget effectively and remain in their communities. The cap on annual increases would reduce the frequency of “economic evictions,” where tenants are forced out not by their own actions but by unaffordable rent hikes. Over time, this stabilizes neighborhoods, reduces homelessness, and preserves the economic diversity that makes cities functional.

The scope of impact would be significant but not absolute. Rent control typically covers 40-60% of a city’s rental stock (excluding new construction and small owner-occupied buildings), meaning millions of tenants could benefit in a major metropolitan area. Metrics would include a reduction in displacement rates, lower rent-to-income ratios for affected households, and decreased demand for emergency rental assistance. However, there are trade-offs: some landlords may convert rental units to condominiums or other uses to escape controls, and new construction may slow if investors perceive reduced profit potential. These risks can be mitigated through careful policy design, including new construction exemptions and vacancy decontrol provisions.

DECISION LENS

PRECEDENTS

EXAMPLE: New York City — What: New York has maintained rent stabilization since 1969, covering approximately 1 million units. The system caps annual increases based on a Rent Guidelines Board vote, with exemptions for new construction for 10-15 years. — Outcome: Despite rent control, New York has continued to build new housing (averaging 25,000+ units annually pre-pandemic), demonstrating coexistence is possible. — Outcome: Despite rent control, New York has continued to build new housing (averaging 25,000+ units annually pre-pandemic), demonstrating coexistence is possible. EXAMPLE: San Francisco — What: San Francisco’s rent control ordinance (passed 1979) covers buildings constructed before 1979, with annual increases tied to CPI (capped at 60% of CPI or 7%, whichever is lower). New construction is exempt for 15 years. — Outcome: Rent-controlled tenants have 20-30% lower displacement rates than market-rate tenants, though overall affordability remains challenged by high demand. — Outcome: Rent-controlled tenants have 20-30% lower displacement rates than market-rate tenants, though overall affordability remains challenged by high demand. EXAMPLE: Oregon Statewide Rent Control (2020) — What: Oregon became the first state to enact statewide rent control, capping annual increases at 7% plus inflation (effectively 7-10% total). The law exempts new construction for 15 years and small owner-occupied buildings. — Outcome: Early data shows reduced eviction filings and slower rent growth in Portland and other cities, though long-term effects on construction are still being studied. — Outcome: Early data shows reduced eviction filings and slower rent growth in Portland and other cities, though long-term effects on construction are still being studied.