This argument doesn't make any sense. If there are profits to be made from building new housing and renting it out, some one is going to do that. The higher tho

This argument doesn't make any sense. If there are profits to be made from building new housing and renting it out, some one is going to do that. The higher those profits are, the higher the incentive to do so. People aren't going to respond to artificially suppressed profit margins by doubling down. This article is also full of other strange arguments. Consider: "The fact that real estate developers have funded an anti-Proposition 10 campaign to the tune of $45 million suggests that they are eager to defend their market power. If California were a truly competitive housing market where home builders operated with slim margins, they’d load up their cranes and build in some other state. But it’s clear these developers benefit from the status quo and are fighting hard to keep it." Selling retail gasoline is a low margin business. But you can bet that if there was legislation to impose a price cap, gas stations and oil companies would be opposed. In other words, everyone everywhere is always going to be opposed to legislation that reduces how much they can charge for their product. You don't need to posit other factors such as the existence of market power or lack of competitiveness to explain the opposition.