Regular supply and demand doesn't really seem to apply to real estate because renters are not voluntary participants in the market: The alternative to consumin

Regular supply and demand doesn't really seem to apply to real estate because renters are not voluntary participants in the market: The alternative to consuming the available housing is homelessness. Supply and demand obviously are efficient to determine property values, but optimal property values isn't the goal of rent control regimes. This report from Brookings is illustrative: It shows that property values (and rents) in Cambridge have sharply risen after rent control has been cancelled. The article concludes: "In short, the policy imposed $2.0 billion in costs to local property owners, but only $300 million of that cost was transferred to renters in rent-controlled apartments." [0] That is undoubtly true, but seems to miss the point - the goal of rent control is not to help in optimal pricing of real estate. Rent control only seems to not work when high real estate prices are the goal of the researcher, instead of low rents. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-eviden... EDIT: I think one core problem in this discussion is the assumed relation between real estate values and rent level. In hot markets these are only loosely correlated, though: Investors can often savely assume that appreciation alone will result in profits. An example for Berlin, Germany: from 2010 to 2020 real estate values rose about 400% but rent "only" rose 66%. This means investors can safely assume profitable investments even if rents are not part of the equation, by real estate appreciation alone. An unregulated real estate market therefore will certainly result in rising property prices, but this doesn't mean more living space will be available.