> Landlords are disincentivized to ever renovate or improve rent-controlled units. This is already true in low-vacancy housing markets. Besides, renovating uni

> Landlords are disincentivized to ever renovate or improve rent-controlled units. This is already true in low-vacancy housing markets. Besides, renovating units with active tenants is extraordinarily rare. Outside of active units (among common american rent control schemes) units without active unita may be freely repriced. > Developers may constrain supply, since it would be more profitable to develop housing somewhere without rent control, all other things being equal. Developers are not landlords. Why would developers care about rent when they aren't renting? Outside of cartel activity this shouldn't happen. > The market rent (paid by newcomers or movers) often increases, owing to constrained supply caused by multiple of the above points. Neither supply nor rent control are sufficient to keep rents stable to a given metric. Surely this can't be news to anyone. You need to provide both to competently manage a rental market. But neither rent control nor supply will remove homelessness. Only decommodification will.