I can't comment on whether it works or not because most of the article is paywalled for me, but what I can comment on is on a logical observation of the free ma

I can't comment on whether it works or not because most of the article is paywalled for me, but what I can comment on is on a logical observation of the free market. It is not free, it's expensive to be poor. It's always cheaper to be an investor, your taxes get a lot lower due to better access of off-shore services you get. The less rich you are the more expensive your financial overhead fees get. Thus there is no level playing field. In a basic free market you only need to enforce 2 rules. No fraud, and no monopoly. Instead what you see in many big cities is sketchy capital flying in and a virtual monopoly dominated by Airbnb and their fleet of landlord contractors causing an artificial shortage that results in over half the units being empty by midweek. If the competition was level then the rental prices and even property prices would be actually be reasonably matching the average incomes of the local population. This means that rent control is merely a bandaid measure that should be removed once we ensure that everyone in the market is actually paying their fair share. Given the current status quo I personally think it's better to have rent control than not to have it, even as a just a temporary patch on this problem; but by no means do I think it will solve the problem for good.