> As a result of these landlord reactions, rent-controlled buildings saw a 15 percent decline in the number of renter residents, and a 25 percent decline in those living in the rent-controlled units, compared to 1994 levels. In other words, rent control had a counterproductive effect.
Fewer residents mean less supply of housing, meaning higher prices overall. Rent control effectively subsidizes current tenants with money from future tenants.
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-...
2. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/rent-control-a-reckon...
Right now the market is bifurcated into the lucky ones who have absurdly cheap housing and the unlucky ones that have absurdly expensive housing. Without rent control, the equilibrium state would be something in between.
It incentivizes tenants with artificial low rent to stay beyond what were needed. People with low rent hang on to the units even when they have bought houses (I actually know people doing it).
It decentivizes landlords to keep the buildings as rentals. It decentivizes investors to add more housing supplies.
Rent control hurts affordable housing because it incentivizes over-consumption of affordable housing. Without rent control, average rents would rise, but it would be easier to find apartments at the low end of the market.