Proposed Joe Biden-Kamala Harris rent control hurts housing affordability

The Joe Biden–Kamala Harris administration’s proposed national rent control policy sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to nationalize the housing industry and foster an unhealthy dependency on federal government intervention.

While the proposal aims to alleviate anxiety surrounding the current housing market, it is a misguided approach that ignores the root causes of housing issues and overlooks the power of local solutions.

National rent control represents a fundamental shift toward federal oversight in a sector that thrives on local governance and market dynamics. By setting a precedent for federal involvement in rent regulation, we risk reaching a point of no return where the housing industry becomes a puppet of national policies, losing the flexibility and responsiveness that local governance provides.

Instead, federal policies in housing should focus on tax incentives to stimulate investment and offset costs burdening the industry and homeownership today.

The primary issue driving the housing crisis is the lack of supply, not the rent levels themselves. Rent control might offer temporary relief for tenants by freezing rents at their current levels and capping the increases into the future, but it ultimately disincentivizes investment in new housing developments.

When investors anticipate limited returns due to controlled rent, they are less likely to invest in constructing new properties or maintaining existing ones. This leads to a stagnant or even shrinking housing supply, exacerbating the very problem rent control seeks to solve.

Today, inventory levels are directly impacting housing values. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Local governments often restrict housing supply with land use and zoning regulations. To address this, we must increase inventory in a responsible and thoughtful way.

Ensuring sufficient housing supply to prevent runaway prices requires diligent planning and coordination at the local and state level. This involves not only zoning reforms but also infrastructure investments and community engagement to balance growth with quality of life.

Local solutions are inherently more adaptable and can be tailored to address specific challenges, whereas a one-size-fits-all national policy like rent control fails to account for regional variations in housing markets.

The current housing crisis is compounded by high-interest rates, making homebuying less accessible and keeping current homeowners locked into their homes, unable to trade up or downsize. This situation artificially reduces demand for homeownership and restricts the existing home inventory from the market.

Additionally, the insurance crisis we are seeing across the nation from California to Florida further exacerbates the problem. Homeowners face a lack of clarity on premiums, with year-over-year increases doubling or even tripling with no end in sight. This unpredictability further strains the housing market and discourages investment in new and existing properties.

Free market principles, combined with strategic local governance, provide a more effective framework for addressing housing issues. Local and state governments possess a nuanced understanding of their unique housing markets and are better equipped to implement zoning, land use, and density policies tailored to their communities’ needs.

These tools can significantly impact the housing supply, ensuring prices remain affordable without imposing blanket regulations that stifle market dynamics.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has consistently advocated for market-based solutions to housing affordability. AEI’s research emphasizes the importance of supply-side interventions, such as easing zoning restrictions and streamlining the permitting process, to boost housing construction. Their findings underscore that increasing supply, rather than imposing rent controls, is the key to stabilizing prices and ensuring long-term affordability.

The Biden-Harris national rent control proposal is a misguided attempt to address housing concerns through federal overreach. It threatens to undermine the housing market’s dynamism and foster dependency on government intervention.

Instead, we should focus on empowering local governments to implement zoning and land use policies that increase housing supply. By embracing free market principles and leveraging local expertise, we can develop sustainable solutions that address the root causes of the housing crisis without sacrificing market vitality or individual autonomy.

The pathway to solving homeownership issues lies in ensuring there is enough supply to prevent runaway prices. This requires hard work and planning at the local and state level.

Some state governments have tried passing legislation addressing this, but it’s unclear if a one-size-fits-all policy is effective. States may be best positioned in incentivizing local governments to address supply and demand issues, we can address the housing crisis in a way that promotes long-term stability and affordability.

___

Daniel Diaz Leyva is a lawyer and businessman based in Coral Gables.