Just because there was a boom during the time of ham fisted rent control does not mean it was caused by rent control nor does it imply that rent control was even good for it.

Have you ever considered how much more housing might have been built if it weren’t for rent control?

I don't think it necessarily was caused by rent control.

It's still an extremely inconvenient fact for anybody advancing the hypothesis that rent control impedes housing development.

It might very well be that the effect is real but is so weak that it is completely overwhelmed by other factors.

It might also be that bringing down property values (which rent control will do) lowers the bar to housing development, spurring more of it.

If I am renting somewhere, surely I am putting money into the local economy? If I am doing that, then surely I deserve some of the benefit of an improving economy? As it is, a renter is punished for improving the local economy because it improves the value and the cost of rent goes up. As it is, employers aren't exactly keeping up with inflation. Add in the increasing cost of rent? Time to move. Oh, wait, all the high tech jobs are highly concentrated when they don't need to be.

> In reality all rent control really does is redistribute some the spoils of rising land values from certain owners to certain renters.

No, rent control also redistributes the burden of rising rental costs from people who have rent control to people who don't, and tends to make that burden larger than it would be otherwise.

> If you really want to incentivize home building you need to disincentivize land hoarding. That means repealing prop 13 or implementing LVT.

On this, we agree. And we can't just simply throw rent control in the trash overnight and expect everything to work out. It needs to happen in concert with other initiatives that increase the housing stock, and be phased out over time, with targeted help to more vulnerable people.

But I don't expect any of this to happen, at least not until things get to people-are-rioting-in-the-streets levels.

>No, rent control also redistributes the burden of rising rental costs from people who have rent control to people who don't

Supply of apartments and demand for apartments doesn't suddenly change under rent control so no, there's no market pressure making non rent controlled apartments more expensive hence there is no redistribution between renters.

Lucky renters get below market rate and unlucky renters get market rate.

There is only re-redistribution from rentiers (landlords) back to renters. 1% -> 99%.

I don't think rent control is the best solution for the housing crisis (100% LVT ftw) but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that it hurts renters. It never has and it never will.

> Supply of apartments and demand for apartments doesn't suddenly change under rent control

Yes it absolutely does. Demand doesn't change, but supply is artificially reduced because people with rent control are less likely to want to (or be able to) move out.

People who don't move out aren't increasing supply but they also arent competing with other people seeking new apartments so they aren't increasing demand either. It's net neutral.

Unless you're talking about the people forced on to the street or out of the city entirely by rising rents...?