In November 2021, voters in Minneapolis asked city leaders to explore the implementation of rent control. Last week, a city staff report was released. The report recommended against the 3 percent cap on rent increases that a group of landlords and tenants had suggested. The report concludes that
the cost to the city from imposing the 3% rent cap — including declines in building and property taxes, and significant enforcement costs — could outweigh the benefits, “which would impact a small percentage of renters.”
While these findings are true, proponents of rent control will likely make counter claims, and the debate will center on who has the most accurate statistics. A much more effective and powerful finding would have been that rent control is not a proper function of government.
The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights—the freedom of each individual to live as he chooses so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. Rent control does the exact opposite. It forces landlords to act differently than they would voluntarily choose, not because they have violated the rights of others, but because they have the audacity to increase rents more than tenants like.
The rights of tenants protect their freedom to accept or reject the terms and conditions offered by a landlord. A landlord can’t force a renter to sign a lease and agree to a rent increase. But rent control can and does force a landlord to sign a lease and “agree” to a rent lower than he judges best.
Instead of arguing over the details of rent regulations, landlords should proclaim that rent control is not a proper function of government. That would totally shift the debate. Rather than debating the impracticability of rent control, the focus would be on the immorality of rent control.