No decent person wants to see others struggle to afford safe, decent housing. But this does not mean that we should embrace any policy—such as rent control—that keeps rents more affordable. The means are not justified by the ends.
In evaluating any issue, we must consider the full context—all of the relevant information. If we examine rent control only from the perspective of tenants, then we would reasonably conclude that rent control is a good thing. It does, in fact, keep rents at a more affordable level. But there is much more to the story.
It is a well-documented fact that rent control leads to a decline in both the quantity and the quality of rental housing. But rent control advocates are not concerned with the long-term. They see a problem today, and they want a remedy today. They are unconcerned with the full context.
As one example, the advocates of rent control look at only one side of the affordability equation—the cost of housing. However, the affordability of housing is determined by two factors—the cost of housing and a household’s income. A household that makes $100,000 a year has a lot more housing options than a household earning $25,000. Housing activists refuse to address this fact.
Instead, they give us examples of a poor family with four children. The parents often work in jobs that pay little more than the minimum wage. We are then cajoled to feel sorry for them because they struggle to find affordable housing. If somebody suggests that the parents should have waited until their financial situation improved to have children, the suggestion is dismissed as racist and sexist. We are supposed to believe that counseling individuals to make good choices is a form of bigotry.
Individuals have a right to have children. They do not have a right to force others to support those children. Similarly, individuals have a right to obtain affordable housing. They do not have a right to force landlords to subsidize that housing. The means are not justified by the ends.