Landlords don't set prices. They are price takers in the market just as much as tenants.
Landlords would gladly accept new development because... it would let them make more money?
Well, government and highly engaged groups of voters exercise control in municipalities in Western democracies.
Landlords come in many stripes and some are local voters who hold land/property. These landlords are often NIMBYs, as any increase in supply of housing drives down the asset price of housing/land, which is to say their investments. MOst of these landlords aren't in the position to take advantage of liberalized zoning, as the are undercapitalized relative to the cost of land/construction. All of their financial eggs tend be in the basket of their existing property.
Larger landlords, or developers/real estate firms may well favor liberalized zoning as they profit from development. However, at the moment many voters hate developers, sometimes for good reasons.
In a sense, we're in a bit of a pickle.
If you have a single rental property and no interest or ability in obtaining any additional, then you're going to make less money if new development increases supply and prices go down.
This can't be a surprise, vast swathes of the economy have fallen into virtual monopoly over that last few decades.
By the way, I think we can extrapolate candidate Bloomberg's (non)position on the housing issue here.
The use of that software has exactly the same outcome as a cartel but, understandably, few people want to acknowledge that even to themselves.
That's the behaviour of the completely rational homo economicus which does not exist in real life. A certain amount of landlords of walk-in business space in Manhattan have a fixed price in their mind and will not go below, no matter what.
This is why there are no examples of any towns where rent is less than it was decade ago regardless of population decline. It is why there are rising numbers of working homeless in towns with rising vacancies.
It is the chief mechanism driving ever increasing rental profits which is probably why merely mentioning the existence of the service, its ubiquitous use and success draws such silent ire. Silent because of course anyone can just google for the service. It also does not match the standard narrative which no doubt annoys people in inarticulable ways.
Likelihood is a real measurable quantity with a real number attached. You can obtain it by counting the defection rate: the number who lower their rent. This number is observably zero.
Regardless, do you have a source on the claim that housing prices never go down, even with a declining population? I'd be curious to see if they adjusted for inflation or not.
But indeed, "Never" is to strong a term. "Typically in the US" would be more correct.
in 2000, the average US rent was $600 and the vacancy rate was 7.8%
in 2018, the average US rent was $1400 and the vacancy rate was 7.5%
I can not list every city in the country that has lost population but I can start with two: As I mention elsewhere, Flint Michigan has lost some 20% of it's population since 2000 and rent has still risen. And searching California for cities with declining population (there are not many) the first I found, Citrus Heights CA, has had a net drop in population in the last 20yers yet rent has increased four fold.
At any rate, the down votes make it clear this information is not welcome here.
And in particular they now have the ability to set higher prices, which is the particular act that angers residents.