I also want to challenge an implicit assumption made in the article, namely that rent control inherently limits housing supply. Suppose rentals were simply ban

I also want to challenge an implicit assumption made in the article, namely that rent control inherently limits housing supply. Suppose rentals were simply banned. That is, you can only buy, and the rental market was eliminated. Would housing supply disappear? I'd argue no, that you'd simply end up with more longer-term, higher-rate (to compensate for default-risk) mortgages. Which might be a good thing. You wouldn't have to worry about 40-year residents being suddenly forced out of their homes any more, and still have a "free" market.