I was recently at a party and met a woman from California. During our conversation, she mentioned that she owned a duplex and rented one of the units. I asked her if it was rent controlled. She had to think about it, but then she said that it was, and she didn’t have a problem with it.
She may not have a problem with rent control, but she is a victim. And she is sanctioning her victimization.
While the details vary, rent control imposes caps on what a landlord can charge. In some cases, the rent that the owner needs/desires may be equal to or less than the cap. But in most cases, rent control prohibits the owner from getting a fair market price for his property. Indeed, my new acquaintance admitted that she had benefited from rent control when she was a tenant. That is, she paid a price that was below market value.
If she is willing to accept a rental payment below the market value, that is her choice, and I totally support her freedom to make that choice. But rent control forces her to accept a rental payment below market value, and I totally oppose that. It eliminates her choice.
Freedom–no matter the issue to which we apply it–means the absence of force. It means that we can act as we judge best without being threatened with arrest, fines, or other penalties. It means that government won’t prescribe or proscribe our actions.
In the case of my new acquaintance, rental control restricts her freedom of choice. Like many individuals, she finds those restrictions acceptable today. But, what if, at some future date, she wants to raise the rent above the rate set by government officials? She will be prohibited by law from doing so. And her sanction of rent control today will make that future victimization possible.