What Mamdani Gets Right About Housing

"Few policies disgust academic economists quite like rent control. In the 1970s, the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck famously described it as the "most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." In a 2012 poll of prominent economists, just 2 percent said that rent-control laws have had "a positive impact" on the "amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them." (The Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler sarcastically proposed a follow-up survey question: "Does the sun revolve around the earth?")"

"When I interviewed Mamdani about his housing plans, however, he emphasized that although more building is necessary, it is not sufficient—or sufficiently fast. "We absolutely have to expedite the process by which we build new housing," he told me. "But we can't do that unless we also address people's immediate needs." In many places, especially those where the housing shortage is most severe, the politics of building new units is toxic. The perceived costs of development often inspire intense opposition while the benefits take years, even decades, to materialize."

Economists overwhelmingly oppose rent control, citing historical warnings and a 2012 poll showing only 2 percent seeing positive effects on affordable rental housing. Public commentary and expert columnists broadly condemned a proposed rent freeze as harmful to rental markets. The prevailing policy consensus favors increasing housing supply by removing regulatory barriers and accelerating construction. A contrasted view holds that accelerating building is necessary but insufficient in the short term, and that immediate interventions are needed to protect tenants. Political resistance to new development often stems from perceived local costs while benefits take years or decades to appear.

Read at The Atlantic