Until there's a better solution than "tough shit" these policies will continue to be popular.
Why is this something we should encourage/subsidize?
And that's assuming that if they can't find housing sufficiently nearby, they may also need to find a new job, lose friends, have a harder time staying in touch with family, etc.
I'm not suggesting it's easy to own, but emphasizing that the rental market is a market, and rents change whenever a new contract comes due. If you want to smooth the rates over a long time horizon, buy something or sign a long-term lease.
Unfortunately, rent control fails consistently. It doesn’t change the fact that too many people need too few homes, not to mention the margin squeeze for property owners. The Bay Area needs way more home, especially multi-family units near transportation.
But that doesn’t change the fact that renting is fundamentally unstable, and a short-term contract comes with risks. You seem focused on shooting the messenger.
The relevant issue: Switzerland has rent control (and has had it for a long time). So if it's tenable position for the 2nd richest nation (and has been for a long time), it does suggest that renting being "fundamentally unstable" is not a requirement.
The same individual responsibility for the rental price is on the landlord. If prices rise substantially during their renter's lease period, the landlord is going to pay attention to that. If the rental market increases only a little bit, it is not uncommon for landlords to leave the rental price more or less the same when there is an upcoming lease renewal because it is often more of a hassle (and a risk) to jack the price up, potentially piss off the renter, then they move out, and the landlord now has the new hassle and risk of finding a new renter and possibly going one or more months without revenue.
But in cases where rents rise, say 25% or more in a 1-year lease period, what should a landlord do? Not raise the price for his renter? Leave that money on the table? Or raise the price, run the risk that the current renter cannot afford it, and they either move out or pay.
I'm basically describing normal market behavior. And I think this discussion often devolves into what we often deem to be our "rights" as people. We see the same discussions occurring with healthcare, too, and there are pieces of that applying to housing as well. Renters cannot easily "control" what happens to their supply/demand of rental housing units in their area but when there are large swings, how much "protection" from those swings are people really entitled to?
Perpetual rent controls seem awfully unfair, in my view. There has to be at least some form of rent price adaptation that allows a rental unit to always converge towards its market price if a renter is already living in it.
And besides, no rent should be jumping past 5%+inflation in good faith, especially while wages are stagnant. The name rent control is confusing as it implies some sort of stasis.
In this case, it just helps prevent gouging.
Because you don't want the social fabric of a city rooted up because no one can live there. Where are your teachers going to live? Or the person flipping your burger?
Why do we need a better solution than "tough shit"?
Not everyone is entitled to live where they want. If you want that, try Europe.
I don't know man, appealing to the authority of the collective wisdom of the voters seems like a pretty shaky foundation on which to base an argument these days.
If you want rent control, I'm saying you should go elsewhere.
If you are against rent control, my comment did not imply what you should or shouldn't do.
you'd probably get a better answer if you were to ask the person who made that comment.
"Not everyone is entitled to live where they want" is like... OK sure. But only land owners used to be able to vote. It makes a lot of sense to help out renters through policies that might harm owners.
You're saying the only people entitled to live on desirable land are wealthy assholes coming from afar? "I'm sorry, the only place you're entitled to live at your income level is that shithole next to the meatpacking/chemical/whatever plant. Why are you complaining? You can live with all your other equally-abled friends!"
This is how you create ghettos.
Rich or poor, asshole or not asshole: No one is entitled to live anywhere.
There is only a market price. That's all.
What's wrong with the housing market is that a housing market actually exists. We should be working to provide food, housing and comfort for all people as a matter of course, not to make rich capitalists who already own most of the wealth on the planet even richer.
But beyond that, local residents set local policy so it's obvious why these policies are in place.
whilst that is true, society should band together in such a way as to make it possible to create cheap shelter for everybody (as an option, those who wants to live more luxuriousy should be able to if they have the means).
Rent control isn't really achieving it though, and only distorts the market.