This is one of the worst written articles I have ever seen on HN.<p>You have to get to about midway in the article before the author even begins to make their case. And they don't do a very good job of it.<p>Rent control is fundamentally a transfer of wealth from the young (who don't have a 30 year old apartment) to the old. Like all such transfers, there are winners and losers. This article is misleading because it focuses on the few who benefit instead of the vast majority who suffer from increased rents.
I think the real solution is limiting the number of rental properties any corporation (including sub-companies) can own. I also think similar should apply to foreign nationals. I think these limits can probably be based on the class of property as well.<p>I would combine this with the FTC possibly looking into management companies as well. Preventing any management company from controlling more than say 5% of a given area.<p>The issue is larger organizations and property management companies effectively "testing" for the max pricing in every given area and in turn leading to ever increasing prices. It's a feedback loop that doesn't have brakes on it. Bring ownership closer and more distributed and there can actually be competition.<p>Just my $.02 on this.
> These answers make sense to everyone except neoliberal economists and people in their thrall.<p>Yes, those are answers. No, they are not solutions. Many of those problems were created by government. Either as means to buying votes or as a result of Cronie Capitalism.<p>So now the answer - not the solution? - is more of the same? Maybe it would work? But I continually fail to follow the logic.