And then proceeded to say a bunch of stuff that makes me think you don't believe this assumption.

Think through your own example. Even if landlords collude, "still charging $3-4k a month rent", and more units open up, eventually some of those units will not be rented. Dormant units do not generate revenue, regardless of the asking price. If even more units are added, more landlords will continue to collect $0 on their dormant units.

Landlords then have two options: continue to ask for $X dollars and get $0 or ask for $X-Y dollars and get $X-Y dollars. If $(X-Y) > $0, the law of large numbers, empirical studies, and common sense dictate that landlords will choose option B.

Prices could stay high, however, if more people move to the area, increasing demand to match supply.

> Prices could stay high, however, if more people move to the area, increasing demand to match supply.

I think that's key. Places that are seen as the most desirable to live in tend to attract people. If housing got (temporarily) cheaper, more people would move in and it would return to a similar equilibrium.

I think this problem is best fixed by creating more desirable places to live, not by trying to find a way to pack more people in (though efforts to reduce housing prices are admirable and worth doing).

Something I've wondered a lot about is if it's possible to create desirable cities deliberately, rather than let them spring up naturally. (Obviously a lot of developers have tried to do that as a way of making money, but I suspect you could get better results if you set out with the primary aim of creating a pleasant place to live and work and structured it as a non-profit.)

There's effectively infinitely much suburbia in America already. It's the "packed in" experience (walkable streetscapes, transit-connected mid- and high-rise housing, etc) that's scarce, and that we need more of.

There exist values for X and Y where $X * 12 months < $Y * 8 months, and if the landlord believes the market will be that much higher in 4 months, then the unit stays empty.

This is a well-founded belief only because demand is increasing faster than supply.

No takers; the real-estate folks thought that prices were going back up and that they'd be better off with empty buildings, primed for when the economy recovered than accepting money from the likes of me.

(The other bit is that rent control is not the whole of this... In california, rent control mostly doesn't apply to anything modern.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa%E2%80%93Hawkins_Rental_H...

You really gotta understand that law to understand this debate; that law is essentially why the poor oppose most of these 'yimby' ordinances; the buildings that would be demolished are rent controlled in SF, and under that law would be replaced by units that are not rent control.

If you don't understand that,the opposition from the poor simply doesn't make sense, because more units, in a free market, wouldn't drive up rents for anyone... but in a market with rent control, if you demolish rent control housing and replace it with market rate housing, you have less housing available for the poor.

(scott wiener and other yimby types often respond by adding a certain number of affordable housing units and/or prohibit tearing down existing rent controlled places. The latter pushes new construction to more commercial/industrial spaces, which if you ask me, is just fine, as it usually means more mixed-use kind of construction)

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

I don't think collusion is easy in a market with so many landlords. Here's an article about Denver prices dipping a few years back due to - you guessed it - lots of supply:

https://www.curbed.com/2017/1/25/14342828/denver-rents-affor...

Supply and demand. Demand dropped during the financial crisis. They would also drop with enough supply.

If we assume prices are lowered maybe John decides room with Matthew only instead of with Matthew, Ashley and Jaheim.