Why rent control should concern landlords in EVERY state

General Landlording & Rental Properties
8moFollow

Why rent control should concern landlords in EVERY state

Justin R.Pro Member
Rental Property Investor · San Anselmo · Member since 2015 · 659 posts · 600 votes

The writing is on the wall. It is no longer a question of if rent control is coming, but when. Many cities/states already have rent control in place, and these are not theoretical ideas — they are real laws currently being enforced.

Under the current President and administration, a nationwide rent control policy is unlikely. However, it only takes a future administration with a different agenda for rent control to become permanent at the national level.

As landlords, we have already experienced unprecedented rent forbearance during the pandemic, ongoing tax increases and additional local tax measures, dramatic insurance premium hikes, and rising CapEx and maintenance costs driven by inflation. All of this has resulted in lower net operating income. Yet the prevailing public perception is that landlords are simply raising rents and generating excess profit, which in many cases is not accurate.

Real estate today is not what it once was, and this trend is likely to continue. The most effective action available is at the local level: advocating for balanced policy and supporting responsible landlords who are working to provide quality housing to their communities. Until then, it is worth reviewing these rent control laws directly from the cities that have already implemented them.

Berkely, CA - https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/rights-responsibilities/ren...

Portlande, ME - https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/014c1dbc-bccc-47b6-...

NYC - https://www.nyc.gov/site/mayorspeu/programs/rent-stabilizati...

Log Angeles - https://housing.lacity.gov/rental-property-owners/rent-contr...

2Reply
850 views

Most Popular Reply

Greg ScottPro Member
Rental Property Investor · SE Michigan · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 6k+ votes
8mo

I disagree that rent control is inevitable.

In a well publicized social experiment, the city of St. Paul performed very poorly compared to its twin city Minneapolis as you can read here. https://www.credaily.com/briefs/rent-control-lessons-from-tw...

Because of this St Paul began backtracking on some of their policies. https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/05/08/st-paul-walks-back-...

And, you only have to look at free-market Austin Texas, which was the poster child for rent increases a decade ago, to see that the best solution for high rent is simply building more housing.https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/22/austin-texas-rents-f...

12Reply
See this reply in the discussion

40 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Greg ScottPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · SE Michigan · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    8mo

    I disagree that rent control is inevitable.

    In a well publicized social experiment, the city of St. Paul performed very poorly compared to its twin city Minneapolis as you can read here. https://www.credaily.com/briefs/rent-control-lessons-from-tw...

    Because of this St Paul began backtracking on some of their policies. https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/05/08/st-paul-walks-back-...

    And, you only have to look at free-market Austin Texas, which was the poster child for rent increases a decade ago, to see that the best solution for high rent is simply building more housing.https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/22/austin-texas-rents-f...

    12Reply
  • Justin R.Pro Member
    OP
    Rental Property Investor · San Anselmo · Member since 2015 · 659 posts · 600 votes
    8mo

    I think we agree that rent control is not a good solution, and the findings of the Twin Cities report align with common sense. Unfortunately, many laws are enacted to appeal to large voter bases rather than to address the underlying problems.

    There have been repeated signals at the federal level suggesting interest in nationwide rent control or rent-stabilization policies. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Jamaal Bowman led calls for federal action to confront the housing crisis and limit rent increases. Senator Bernie Sanders has historically advocated for a national rent-control standard tied to inflation and other limits on annual increases. Former Vice President and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has publicly pledged to “take on landlords and cap unfair rent increases” as part of her housing agenda.

    Taken together, these proposals suggest that nationwide rent control is not a theoretical idea, but an approaching reality. If you don’t think the next Democratic nominee, especially one running on affordable housing and renters’ rights, will use rent control as a measure to garner votes, you are fooling yourself. The only uncertainty is timing; the momentum clearly continues in that direction, and a future administration could make such policies permanent.

    1Reply
  • James Hamling
    Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    8mo

    While I appreciate where your coming from @Justin R., I think the way your going about it does more harm then good. 

    Look, you start off with this ⚠️warning⚠️ that rent controls are coming, or may be coming if, if if....... And then contradict your own hook by noting rent control actions already done..... 

    What's worse is you appear to be oblivious to the rent control actions many decades in place. 

    Rent control is not coming, it's been here a really long time already. So now right from get-go you've lost credibility and if you followed that with 1+1=2 persons would have a feeling of double checking ya. 

    Next is the plausibility of a National rent control measure. To keep this simple; it's NOT. Ok, think about it, how do you humanly make anything that correctly "cap's" things when we have gigantic variance state to state in all the details. Take just property taxes, some states utilize this as a major funding measure, other's not at all. So for the exact same property in some places that tax will be many thousands, and in others who rely on sales tax or resources for funding, maybe next to nothing. 

    States vary so much in how they operate that it's not remotely plausible in the least that such a nuanced thing as real estate can have any direct controls such as rent control. Not unless one removes all that nuanced facet, which now we are talking an end of the union because that's what it would take. 

    Texas would tell ya "Ah bah-bye" as would Florida, right off top of the head. Than comes TN, WY, on and on. 0.0% viability in that ever happening. 

    The rent control thing has a looooong history; it's nothing new what so ever. Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty". Spoiler alert, turns out socialist and communist measures don't kill poverty, it spreads it around and grows it like fighting a fire with gasoline. Shocker, who'd have guessed, I mean it worked out so well for USSR, E.Germany, Poland, Cuba...... Oh wait, that's right, it's NEVER worked, literally ever, not once..... 

    Look, your confusing Political Theater for actual true and factual declaration of policy intent. 

    First of all, it's common knowledge 98% of politicians are full of 💩 98% of the time. What comes out there mouth is what poll's well, with a targeted demo-group, full-stop. 

    After that, it's playing defense; they find a villain to pin the blame on because most often that 💩 they spewed, it never came to pass or failed miserably. Yeah, that was expected, because it was never by any actual intent of result, it was as detailed before, vote-pandering. 

    Try stepping back and take an analysis. Take all the politicians of last decade, 2, 3, 5.... Make a list of what they campaigned on, then compare it against a list of what they actually did. I would be shocked if they did "as-much-as" 20% of what campaigned on. 

    This is where Trump is the significant anomaly. Love him, hate him, that's not the point so please nobody devolve into that BS. Point is, they guy does MOST of what he says, including the most seemingly implausible outlandish stuff. Now does he change his mind, yup, and were not used to that either, the fact that a persons intentions and actions change as things adjust and develop. Why does that shock us? Because were used to the hollow vote-pandering stuff, which is easy to stick to, because it was hollow from get-go. 

    What your exemplifying here Justin is a result of this devolving tribalist conflict we have ongoing. 

    Not only do I not fear a national rent control, I welcome a major city going HARD into it! I say bring it on! I want that political group to get free-reign of a major market to go borse with their insanity. Because that's the fastest road to RESULTS. And singular ownership of how those results were made. 

    I want it glaringly obvious how 💩 it is. 

    SO we can get onto the next chapter, put all the nonsense behind us, and work on things that DO have evidence of working, and put effort to making them work better. 

    6Reply
    • John Clark
      Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:


       "Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty""

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      War on Poverty was a Johnson saying as part of his Great Society. Carter was ten years later.

      Also, rent control will probably take the form of increases limited to inflation or growth in real wages. Reliance on funding sources or differences in expenses  won't enter into it.

      New York City is full bore into rent control and has been since World War Two. When there was supposed to be a survey of vacancies to determine whether rent control would end (5% threshold) and due to the Covid exodus that number would be hit, the City simply cancelled the survey. The idea was to keep rent control going.

      So while I loath the Angry Cheeto and all he does, I can't say that the Left is any more enlightened.

      1Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @James Hamling:


       "Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty""

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      War on Poverty was a Johnson saying as part of his Great Society. Carter was ten years later.

      Also, rent control will probably take the form of increases limited to inflation or growth in real wages. Reliance on funding sources or differences in expenses  won't enter into it.

      New York City is full bore into rent control and has been since World War Two. When there was supposed to be a survey of vacancies to determine whether rent control would end (5% threshold) and due to the Covid exodus that number would be hit, the City simply cancelled the survey. The idea was to keep rent control going.

      So while I loath the Angry Cheeto and all he does, I can't say that the Left is any more enlightened.


      "War on Poverty was a Johnson saying as part of his Great Society. Carter was ten years later."

      Ah, so someone WAS paying attention. You caught part1 of my "easter-egg". 
      Alright, let's see how well you are paying attention; what would part2 of that "easter-egg" be you suppose? 
      What DID Carter say about "the war on poverty"? 

      And, what did Carter do? How did he come at housing affordability? 

      If I hand you a fish, it won't do anything for your tomorrow. I'm trying to teach you how-to fish. 

      0Reply
    • John Clark
      Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @James Hamling:


       "Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty""

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      War on Poverty was a Johnson saying as part of his Great Society. Carter was ten years later.

      Also, rent control will probably take the form of increases limited to inflation or growth in real wages. Reliance on funding sources or differences in expenses  won't enter into it.

      New York City is full bore into rent control and has been since World War Two. When there was supposed to be a survey of vacancies to determine whether rent control would end (5% threshold) and due to the Covid exodus that number would be hit, the City simply cancelled the survey. The idea was to keep rent control going.

      So while I loath the Angry Cheeto and all he does, I can't say that the Left is any more enlightened.


      "War on Poverty was a Johnson saying as part of his Great Society. Carter was ten years later."

      Ah, so someone WAS paying attention. You caught part1 of my "easter-egg". 
      Alright, let's see how well you are paying attention; what would part2 of that "easter-egg" be you suppose? 
      What DID Carter say about "the war on poverty"? 

      And, what did Carter do? How did he come at housing affordability? 

      If I hand you a fish, it won't do anything for your tomorrow. I'm trying to teach you how-to fish. 


      I got plenty of fish, Jim. Eggs, too.

      0Reply
    • Justin R.Pro Member
      OP
      Rental Property Investor · San Anselmo · Member since 2015 · 659 posts · 600 votes
      8mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:


      Not sure why you think Im oblivious to historical rent control, but Ok.

      I hope you’re right that the political momentum of rent control won’t keep spreading in the U.S. But for that to happen, public sentiment would need to swing hard in the other direction, because the recent trend is clearly moving toward more rent caps, not fewer. 

      Real examples: Washington State just passed a statewide cap on annual rent increases (HB 1217). And it’s not only Washington. Counties like Montgomery County, MD and Prince George’s County, MD have enacted rent stabilization rules in the last couple years. Even smaller cities are adopting these policies — Half Moon Bay, CA is a good example.

      I’m seeing this firsthand. I own rentals across seven states, and in the last two years I’ve watched one entire state adopt rent control, and a city in another state add it too. That city is especially restrictive: it limits increases to 5% at turnover regardless of upgrades, and ongoing increases are capped at 70% of CPI. When I bought there, there was zero rent control. That’s the point — this stuff can change after you’re already in the deal.

      1Reply
    • Henry T.
      Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:

      While I appreciate where your coming from @Justin R., I think the way your going about it does more harm then good. 

      Look, you start off with this ⚠️warning⚠️ that rent controls are coming, or may be coming if, if if....... And then contradict your own hook by noting rent control actions already done..... 

      What's worse is you appear to be oblivious to the rent control actions many decades in place. 

      Rent control is not coming, it's been here a really long time already. So now right from get-go you've lost credibility and if you followed that with 1+1=2 persons would have a feeling of double checking ya. 

      Next is the plausibility of a National rent control measure. To keep this simple; it's NOT. Ok, think about it, how do you humanly make anything that correctly "cap's" things when we have gigantic variance state to state in all the details. Take just property taxes, some states utilize this as a major funding measure, other's not at all. So for the exact same property in some places that tax will be many thousands, and in others who rely on sales tax or resources for funding, maybe next to nothing. 

      States vary so much in how they operate that it's not remotely plausible in the least that such a nuanced thing as real estate can have any direct controls such as rent control. Not unless one removes all that nuanced facet, which now we are talking an end of the union because that's what it would take. 

      Texas would tell ya "Ah bah-bye" as would Florida, right off top of the head. Than comes TN, WY, on and on. 0.0% viability in that ever happening. 

      The rent control thing has a looooong history; it's nothing new what so ever. Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty". Spoiler alert, turns out socialist and communist measures don't kill poverty, it spreads it around and grows it like fighting a fire with gasoline. Shocker, who'd have guessed, I mean it worked out so well for USSR, E.Germany, Poland, Cuba...... Oh wait, that's right, it's NEVER worked, literally ever, not once..... 

      Look, your confusing Political Theater for actual true and factual declaration of policy intent. 

      First of all, it's common knowledge 98% of politicians are full of 💩 98% of the time. What comes out there mouth is what poll's well, with a targeted demo-group, full-stop. 

      After that, it's playing defense; they find a villain to pin the blame on because most often that 💩 they spewed, it never came to pass or failed miserably. Yeah, that was expected, because it was never by any actual intent of result, it was as detailed before, vote-pandering. 

      Try stepping back and take an analysis. Take all the politicians of last decade, 2, 3, 5.... Make a list of what they campaigned on, then compare it against a list of what they actually did. I would be shocked if they did "as-much-as" 20% of what campaigned on. 

      This is where Trump is the significant anomaly. Love him, hate him, that's not the point so please nobody devolve into that BS. Point is, they guy does MOST of what he says, including the most seemingly implausible outlandish stuff. Now does he change his mind, yup, and were not used to that either, the fact that a persons intentions and actions change as things adjust and develop. Why does that shock us? Because were used to the hollow vote-pandering stuff, which is easy to stick to, because it was hollow from get-go. 

      What your exemplifying here Justin is a result of this devolving tribalist conflict we have ongoing. 

      Not only do I not fear a national rent control, I welcome a major city going HARD into it! I say bring it on! I want that political group to get free-reign of a major market to go borse with their insanity. Because that's the fastest road to RESULTS. And singular ownership of how those results were made. 

      I want it glaringly obvious how 💩 it is. 

      SO we can get onto the next chapter, put all the nonsense behind us, and work on things that DO have evidence of working, and put effort to making them work better. 

      James, I'm with what you're saying but it doesn't quite work out the way you're hoping. Take Seattle for example. There's been all kinds of rent control here, not just caps. We're approaching 10 years of utter misery from the beginnings of rental registration, late fee cap of $10, first in, tenant can move in anybody after signed lease, 6 month increase notice, no 1st,last, deposit, unpaid elec is billed to owner, no evictions allowed during the school year, etc. So many landlords have quit and moved on. You would think the city would "get it" and roll back a few of the laws that are hurting availability. But no, when city council member Cathy Moore suggested we take a look at the situation, maybe rolling back a few laws, they practically ran her out of town, she promptly resigned. Cities may eventually come around after unwise legislation but we'll never see it in our lifetimes. Not around here anyway. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears this crap is here to stay. The city council had been warned by study after study, all ignored. Here we are, SFR's are gone.

      2Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @Henry T.:
      Quote from @James Hamling:

      While I appreciate where your coming from @Justin R., I think the way your going about it does more harm then good. 

      Look, you start off with this ⚠️warning⚠️ that rent controls are coming, or may be coming if, if if....... And then contradict your own hook by noting rent control actions already done..... 

      What's worse is you appear to be oblivious to the rent control actions many decades in place. 

      Rent control is not coming, it's been here a really long time already. So now right from get-go you've lost credibility and if you followed that with 1+1=2 persons would have a feeling of double checking ya. 

      Next is the plausibility of a National rent control measure. To keep this simple; it's NOT. Ok, think about it, how do you humanly make anything that correctly "cap's" things when we have gigantic variance state to state in all the details. Take just property taxes, some states utilize this as a major funding measure, other's not at all. So for the exact same property in some places that tax will be many thousands, and in others who rely on sales tax or resources for funding, maybe next to nothing. 

      States vary so much in how they operate that it's not remotely plausible in the least that such a nuanced thing as real estate can have any direct controls such as rent control. Not unless one removes all that nuanced facet, which now we are talking an end of the union because that's what it would take. 

      Texas would tell ya "Ah bah-bye" as would Florida, right off top of the head. Than comes TN, WY, on and on. 0.0% viability in that ever happening. 

      The rent control thing has a looooong history; it's nothing new what so ever. Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty". Spoiler alert, turns out socialist and communist measures don't kill poverty, it spreads it around and grows it like fighting a fire with gasoline. Shocker, who'd have guessed, I mean it worked out so well for USSR, E.Germany, Poland, Cuba...... Oh wait, that's right, it's NEVER worked, literally ever, not once..... 

      Look, your confusing Political Theater for actual true and factual declaration of policy intent. 

      First of all, it's common knowledge 98% of politicians are full of 💩 98% of the time. What comes out there mouth is what poll's well, with a targeted demo-group, full-stop. 

      After that, it's playing defense; they find a villain to pin the blame on because most often that 💩 they spewed, it never came to pass or failed miserably. Yeah, that was expected, because it was never by any actual intent of result, it was as detailed before, vote-pandering. 

      Try stepping back and take an analysis. Take all the politicians of last decade, 2, 3, 5.... Make a list of what they campaigned on, then compare it against a list of what they actually did. I would be shocked if they did "as-much-as" 20% of what campaigned on. 

      This is where Trump is the significant anomaly. Love him, hate him, that's not the point so please nobody devolve into that BS. Point is, they guy does MOST of what he says, including the most seemingly implausible outlandish stuff. Now does he change his mind, yup, and were not used to that either, the fact that a persons intentions and actions change as things adjust and develop. Why does that shock us? Because were used to the hollow vote-pandering stuff, which is easy to stick to, because it was hollow from get-go. 

      What your exemplifying here Justin is a result of this devolving tribalist conflict we have ongoing. 

      Not only do I not fear a national rent control, I welcome a major city going HARD into it! I say bring it on! I want that political group to get free-reign of a major market to go borse with their insanity. Because that's the fastest road to RESULTS. And singular ownership of how those results were made. 

      I want it glaringly obvious how 💩 it is. 

      SO we can get onto the next chapter, put all the nonsense behind us, and work on things that DO have evidence of working, and put effort to making them work better. 

      James, I'm with what you're saying but it doesn't quite work out the way you're hoping. Take Seattle for example. There's been all kinds of rent control here, not just caps. We're approaching 10 years of utter misery from the beginnings of rental registration, late fee cap of $10, first in, tenant can move in anybody after signed lease, 6 month increase notice, no 1st,last, deposit, unpaid elec is billed to owner, no evictions allowed during the school year, etc. So many landlords have quit and moved on. You would think the city would "get it" and roll back a few of the laws that are hurting availability. But no, when city council member Cathy Moore suggested we take a look at the situation, maybe rolling back a few laws, they practically ran her out of town, she promptly resigned. Cities may eventually come around after unwise legislation but we'll never see it in our lifetimes. Not around here anyway. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears this crap is here to stay. The city council had been warned by study after study, all ignored. Here we are, SFR's are gone.


      Imagine if back when Sam had shook his fist in the air, said "wtf", had his beer's, gone home and just waited in frustration for someone else to come along and "fix" it all..... 

      No S.O.L., and in my opinion, no USA. 

      I do NOT advocate sitting around doing nothing. Very much the polar opposite. 

      But that's the thing. Complaining, getting angry and ranting and just-that DOES NOTHING. That's not action, that's a rocking chair of rage. 

      Civic INVOLVEMENT. 

      But that's the crux, everyone wants someone else to do it. 

      Well guess what, results are the reward to those who take action. However right or WRONG those actors are. 

      We live in an age of a silent majority and a LOUD minority. And that LOUD minority keeps getting a pressing there way. Why?...... 

      Because of neglect of civic duty. Being involved. Accepting the frustrating truth that you DO have to get up off the couch and do-things as a member of society. 

      It's an issue of neglect. 

      Now, taking action on FALSE information, false narratives, misdirection, is just as damaging as doing nothing. 

      People, in-mass, gotta deploy Common Sense, and get INVOLVED. 

      Yes, more then just voting. Can be as simple as donating 10hrs of your time to who you align with as a great candidate. 

      Standing in streets screaming at each other, moronic. I mean, unless your intent is destabilization then it's brilliant.... 

      Focusing on a National Rent Control is as much a waste of time and energy as is focusing on how one will resist the martians if/when they invade..... 

      All the while there IS impactful things needed right now at your local level where you DO have some level of influence. 

      I rarely mention to anything of the sort but this reminds me of a story my G.Father told me of the time they emptied the neighboring town, and marched the citizens, at gun-point, to the camp to aid, assist and clean-up. There silence and inaction was anything but a free-pass. He shared it in such impact, the first time he truly sobbed, tears from the pit of his soul. 

      Think that hyperbolic, but it's never left me how that started with 1 little thing ignored, 1 little silence, and built over time into silence and inaction over absolute atrocity. 

      No, I do NOT condone sit, watch, wait for someone else. 

      Nor do i condone focusing on the misdirection's and false narratives. 

      1Reply
    • Henry T.
      Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Henry T.:
      Quote from @James Hamling:

      While I appreciate where your coming from @Justin R., I think the way your going about it does more harm then good. 

      Look, you start off with this ⚠️warning⚠️ that rent controls are coming, or may be coming if, if if....... And then contradict your own hook by noting rent control actions already done..... 

      What's worse is you appear to be oblivious to the rent control actions many decades in place. 

      Rent control is not coming, it's been here a really long time already. So now right from get-go you've lost credibility and if you followed that with 1+1=2 persons would have a feeling of double checking ya. 

      Next is the plausibility of a National rent control measure. To keep this simple; it's NOT. Ok, think about it, how do you humanly make anything that correctly "cap's" things when we have gigantic variance state to state in all the details. Take just property taxes, some states utilize this as a major funding measure, other's not at all. So for the exact same property in some places that tax will be many thousands, and in others who rely on sales tax or resources for funding, maybe next to nothing. 

      States vary so much in how they operate that it's not remotely plausible in the least that such a nuanced thing as real estate can have any direct controls such as rent control. Not unless one removes all that nuanced facet, which now we are talking an end of the union because that's what it would take. 

      Texas would tell ya "Ah bah-bye" as would Florida, right off top of the head. Than comes TN, WY, on and on. 0.0% viability in that ever happening. 

      The rent control thing has a looooong history; it's nothing new what so ever. Carter is the administration who declared the "war on poverty". Spoiler alert, turns out socialist and communist measures don't kill poverty, it spreads it around and grows it like fighting a fire with gasoline. Shocker, who'd have guessed, I mean it worked out so well for USSR, E.Germany, Poland, Cuba...... Oh wait, that's right, it's NEVER worked, literally ever, not once..... 

      Look, your confusing Political Theater for actual true and factual declaration of policy intent. 

      First of all, it's common knowledge 98% of politicians are full of 💩 98% of the time. What comes out there mouth is what poll's well, with a targeted demo-group, full-stop. 

      After that, it's playing defense; they find a villain to pin the blame on because most often that 💩 they spewed, it never came to pass or failed miserably. Yeah, that was expected, because it was never by any actual intent of result, it was as detailed before, vote-pandering. 

      Try stepping back and take an analysis. Take all the politicians of last decade, 2, 3, 5.... Make a list of what they campaigned on, then compare it against a list of what they actually did. I would be shocked if they did "as-much-as" 20% of what campaigned on. 

      This is where Trump is the significant anomaly. Love him, hate him, that's not the point so please nobody devolve into that BS. Point is, they guy does MOST of what he says, including the most seemingly implausible outlandish stuff. Now does he change his mind, yup, and were not used to that either, the fact that a persons intentions and actions change as things adjust and develop. Why does that shock us? Because were used to the hollow vote-pandering stuff, which is easy to stick to, because it was hollow from get-go. 

      What your exemplifying here Justin is a result of this devolving tribalist conflict we have ongoing. 

      Not only do I not fear a national rent control, I welcome a major city going HARD into it! I say bring it on! I want that political group to get free-reign of a major market to go borse with their insanity. Because that's the fastest road to RESULTS. And singular ownership of how those results were made. 

      I want it glaringly obvious how 💩 it is. 

      SO we can get onto the next chapter, put all the nonsense behind us, and work on things that DO have evidence of working, and put effort to making them work better. 

      James, I'm with what you're saying but it doesn't quite work out the way you're hoping. Take Seattle for example. There's been all kinds of rent control here, not just caps. We're approaching 10 years of utter misery from the beginnings of rental registration, late fee cap of $10, first in, tenant can move in anybody after signed lease, 6 month increase notice, no 1st,last, deposit, unpaid elec is billed to owner, no evictions allowed during the school year, etc. So many landlords have quit and moved on. You would think the city would "get it" and roll back a few of the laws that are hurting availability. But no, when city council member Cathy Moore suggested we take a look at the situation, maybe rolling back a few laws, they practically ran her out of town, she promptly resigned. Cities may eventually come around after unwise legislation but we'll never see it in our lifetimes. Not around here anyway. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears this crap is here to stay. The city council had been warned by study after study, all ignored. Here we are, SFR's are gone.


      Imagine if back when Sam had shook his fist in the air, said "wtf", had his beer's, gone home and just waited in frustration for someone else to come along and "fix" it all..... 

      No S.O.L., and in my opinion, no USA. 

      I do NOT advocate sitting around doing nothing. Very much the polar opposite. 

      But that's the thing. Complaining, getting angry and ranting and just-that DOES NOTHING. That's not action, that's a rocking chair of rage. 

      Civic INVOLVEMENT. 

      But that's the crux, everyone wants someone else to do it. 

      Well guess what, results are the reward to those who take action. However right or WRONG those actors are. 

      We live in an age of a silent majority and a LOUD minority. And that LOUD minority keeps getting a pressing there way. Why?...... 

      Because of neglect of civic duty. Being involved. Accepting the frustrating truth that you DO have to get up off the couch and do-things as a member of society. 

      It's an issue of neglect. 

      Now, taking action on FALSE information, false narratives, misdirection, is just as damaging as doing nothing. 

      People, in-mass, gotta deploy Common Sense, and get INVOLVED. 

      Yes, more then just voting. Can be as simple as donating 10hrs of your time to who you align with as a great candidate. 

      Standing in streets screaming at each other, moronic. I mean, unless your intent is destabilization then it's brilliant.... 

      Focusing on a National Rent Control is as much a waste of time and energy as is focusing on how one will resist the martians if/when they invade..... 

      All the while there IS impactful things needed right now at your local level where you DO have some level of influence. 

      I rarely mention to anything of the sort but this reminds me of a story my G.Father told me of the time they emptied the neighboring town, and marched the citizens, at gun-point, to the camp to aid, assist and clean-up. There silence and inaction was anything but a free-pass. He shared it in such impact, the first time he truly sobbed, tears from the pit of his soul. 

      Think that hyperbolic, but it's never left me how that started with 1 little thing ignored, 1 little silence, and built over time into silence and inaction over absolute atrocity. 

      No, I do NOT condone sit, watch, wait for someone else. 

      Nor do i condone focusing on the misdirection's and false narratives. 


       My good sir, do NOT think for a second that we "sit around". We never sit still, we kick a$$, always. I'm on my way to kick some more a$$ right now.

      0Reply
  • Chris SeveneyBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    8mo

    Outside of a major city in a blue state, I do not see any mass acknowledgment or implementation of any type of rent control.

    7e investments53 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    2Reply
  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    8mo

    I think we are a long ways from having a national rent control, but this does not mean it is not spreading.

    The California legislature implemented rent control the same year that the state voters voted against a rent control measure.  they did this in spite of of most economists believing rent control is undesirable and benefitting a small, percentage of people while harming a much larger number of people   

    Like many areas, the primary is more important than the election.  This implies in California lots of the legislature has less incentive to do what the majority wants than to do what their party constituents desire.   In CA this means the legislature can discount what republicans, independents, and moderate democrats desire.

    The voters have massively defeated statewide rent control initiatives at least 3 times (I believe it is 4 times but it may be only 3 times) yet the state and local jurisdictions keep enacting rent control.   The local initiatives are always more extreme than the state initiative otherwise there would be no need for the local initiative.

    My opinion is it should be illegal for a legislature to pass anything that substantially contradicts a voter outcome for at least 2 years after the vote.  In the case of voters voting down statewide rent control, the legislature should not be able to pass a statewide rent control law.

    Regardless, the reality is rent control is spreading and not that slowly.  I suspect it will continue to spread, but we should do what we can to slow its spread.  It certainly is a socialist trend and anti capitalism, free market.  I have seen very few things that seem to do better when government controlled than via a free market.

    Drop your guard and you may get knocked out.   Never hurts to keep your guard up.

    Good luck

    3Reply
    • Jonathan Greer
      Member since 2026 · 59 posts · 16 votes
      2w

      Hi Dan,

      Regardless of where someone stands on rent control, I think the bigger takeaway for investors is that the rental landscape can change, and it’s worth staying ahead of it. Co-living is one strategy I think is interesting in this conversation. For the right property, renting by the room can create multiple income streams rather than relying on a single lease, which could give investors another option as regulations and market conditions evolve.

      Definitely not a fit for every property, but worth understanding and having in the toolbox.

      Would be great to connect and compare thoughts on where you see the rental market heading.

      0Reply
  • Drew SygitBusiness Member
    Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
    8mo

    Rent control is only a concern for:

    1) Low-demographic tenants
    2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

    Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

    Rent control = publicity

    Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

    That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.

    [email protected]248-209-6824
    Logical Property Management4.9451 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    3Reply
    • John Clark
      Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:

      Rent control is only a concern for:

      1) Low-demographic tenants
      2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

      Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

      Rent control = publicity

      Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

      That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.

      What does. “Low-demographic” mean?
      0Reply
    • Drew SygitBusiness Member
      Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:

      Rent control is only a concern for:

      1) Low-demographic tenants
      2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

      Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

      Rent control = publicity

      Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

      That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.

      What does. “Low-demographic” mean?

       Not going there...if you know, you know.

      [email protected]248-209-6824
      Logical Property Management4.9451 Reviews
      WebsiteView Page
      1Reply
    • John Clark
      Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:

      Rent control is only a concern for:

      1) Low-demographic tenants
      2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

      Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

      Rent control = publicity

      Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

      That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.

      What does. “Low-demographic” mean?

       Not going there...if you know, you know.

      You went there. You used it. Now tell us what you mean.
      0Reply
    • Drew SygitBusiness Member
      Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:

      Rent control is only a concern for:

      1) Low-demographic tenants
      2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

      Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

      Rent control = publicity

      Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

      That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.

      What does. “Low-demographic” mean?

       Not going there...if you know, you know.

      You went there. You used it. Now tell us what you mean.

       Sounds like a trap, Batman...

      [email protected]248-209-6824
      Logical Property Management4.9451 Reviews
      WebsiteView Page
      0Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:

      Rent control is only a concern for:

      1) Low-demographic tenants
      2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

      Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

      Rent control = publicity

      Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

      That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.


      Ever notice the correlation between the areas with/toying with rent controls and ballot harvesting.... 

      0Reply
    • Henry T.
      Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @Drew Sygit:

      Rent control is only a concern for:

      1) Low-demographic tenants
      2) Those that are employed in helping low-demographic tenants

      Politicicans chase votes, as most prioritize re-election above their integrity, and the best way to get votes is to get publicity.

      Rent control = publicity

      Rent control does NOT equal votes because low-demographic tenants historically have some of the lowest voter registration & turnout.

      That's why rent control doesn't always lead to legislation.

      What does. “Low-demographic” mean?

       Not going there...if you know, you know.

      You went there. You used it. Now tell us what you mean.

      Here ya go....

      Low demographic: Situation where the population size is too small relative to available resources and economic opportunities. ( I think China is having this same problem.)


      0Reply
  • Aaron Gordy
    Real Estate Broker · Austin, TX · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    8mo

    The better question is do you see rent control happening in San Anselmo across all rental classes? Its not happening in Texas at all. Even in San Francisco its not occurring on multi unit buildings built after 1979. It seems that there is a state wide rent control act for California based upon the Tenant Protection act of 2019 which is 5% plus the local inflation for a max of 10% for buildings over 10 years old. Jeeeeezzz I wish I could raise my rents 10% in Austin Texas but the market says no, don't be dumb. The law does seem to reward newer builds though in CA. 

    2Reply
    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @Aaron Gordy:

      The better question is do you see rent control happening in San Anselmo across all rental classes? Its not happening in Texas at all. Even in San Francisco its not occurring on multi unit buildings built after 1979. It seems that there is a state wide rent control act for California based upon the Tenant Protection act of 2019 which is 5% plus the local inflation for a max of 10% for buildings over 10 years old. Jeeeeezzz I wish I could raise my rents 10% in Austin Texas but the market says no, don't be dumb. The law does seem to reward newer builds though in CA. 

       You miss one key attribute of rent control in your analysis.   The rent increase as you indicated is fairly reasonable, but there have been multiple years where open market rents increased more that maximum allowed rent increase.  

      The more critical aspect is the difficulty to get rid of poor tenants that pay rent.   A tenant can be very rough on your unit but you have to keep them.   Similar they can repeatedly have lease violations but as long as they keep addressing the lease violation, they get to stay.  

      Prior to rent control, I got rid of undesired tenants by increasing their rent above market value.   The tenant may have thought I was stupid to appropriate rent.  The tenant would provide notice.  This method also addressed any claims on retaliation or bias as the tenant chooses to terminate the lease.

      Rent control makes this approach unavailable in many years.    The market rent increase is too close to max allowed rent increase.   

      My other choices to get tenants out include moving in close family, rehab extensive enough to be inhabitable, or to remove the unit from the rental market forever.

      Basically it has moved the balance of power very far in favor of the tenants.   Fortunately my tenants understand that I do not tolerate $hit and will force their departure via legal means if they are not at least a decent tenant.   My worst tenants are not horrendous, but I still have 2 tenants that I will be charging above market rent going forward.  If they choose to stay, I will be compensated for them being poorish tenants. 

      Extreme rent control increases lead to neglected units and can lead to blighted areas..  It benefits tenants that are paying below market rent at the expense of all new tenants, landlords, neighborhoods, etc.

      By the way the state law I believe overrides the San Francisco law and only units newer than 15 years old are exempt from the state wide rent control law (AB1482).   This means units built after 2011 which is a small percentage of the units).

      Rent control is spreading as is socialism.    The 2 political parties continue to get further apart and it is in both directions.   I am a proud democratic capitalist and I see the democratic policy shifting further toward socialism. 

      If nothing is done, the rent control/socialism spread will continue and the divide will continue to widen.

      3Reply
    • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
      Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
      2w

      San Anselmo CA is a HIGH Dollar market with multi million dollar homes..

      However the OP posted Berkley and Berkley has had rent control since I first started in RE in the late 70s..

      Podcast Guest on Show #222
      JLH Capital Partners51 Review
      WebsiteView Page
      0Reply
  • Ryan KellyBusiness Member
    Real Estate Broker · Austin, TX · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    8mo

    In my opinion, you can't have rent control (income restriction), without tax control (expense restriction). The two should go hand in hand. And for the record, since they don't, I haven't seen one case where rent control works in the long term for a healthy free market.

    [email protected]512-674-5478
    Ryan Kelly Group - Keller Williams5110 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    1Reply
    • Justin R.Pro Member
      OP
      Rental Property Investor · San Anselmo · Member since 2015 · 659 posts · 600 votes
      1w

      Local government can look like the "Good guy" when enacting rent control, but the landlord suffers all the burden. The local municipally would not be willing to reduce property taxes on that same property to alleviate the burden to the landlord.

      0Reply
  • Lydia Winn
    Member since 2025 · 91 posts · 55 votes
    8mo

    Interesting take, and I do see the examples of expanded rent control as being part of a trend in tenant-friendly states.

    However, a nationwide rent control regime would face immediate and aggressive constitutional challenges. Housing regulation and landlord-tenant law have historically fallen within states’ police powers, not federal authority, raising serious Tenth Amendment and federalism concerns. Any attempt to justify national rent caps under the Commerce Clause would be vulnerable, as rent setting for local real estate is not inherently interstate commerce. Broad, uniform price controls would also invite Fifth Amendment takings claims by effectively limiting reasonable returns without compensation, especially when layered onto eviction restrictions. Finally, under the Supreme Court’s modern “major questions” doctrine, a policy of this economic magnitude would require unmistakably clear congressional authorization.

    2Reply
  • Steve K.
    Realtor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    8mo

    Colorado has had a statewide ban on local rent control in place since 1981. Efforts to remove the ban and allow rent control throughout the years have consistently failed (including last year). So I don't think we will see it here anytime soon.

    A nationwide federal rent control mandate would be an issue of states rights vs. federal rights, although there is a precedent for it as I believe during both WW1 and WW2 rent increases were capped on the national level/ in most of the country. Biden flirted with the idea in 2024 but failed to gain traction with it due to widespread consensus that such measures disincentivize new housing construction, worsen supply shortages, and lower property quality. It could hinder development and actually exacerbate the core issue driving housing un-affordability which is a housing shortage. 

    I think what we're seeing in places with rent caps is that landlords are basically forced to make the maximum increase that they are allowed every year which in some cases may be more of an increase than they would have otherwise made.  

    0Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      8mo
      Quote from @Steve K.:

      Colorado has had a statewide ban on local rent control in place since 1981. Efforts to remove the ban and allow rent control throughout the years have consistently failed (including last year). So I don't think we will see it here anytime soon.

      A nationwide federal rent control mandate would be an issue of states rights vs. federal rights, although there is a precedent for it as I believe during both WW1 and WW2 rent increases were capped on the national level/ in most of the country. Biden flirted with the idea in 2024 but failed to gain traction with it due to widespread consensus that such measures disincentivize new housing construction, worsen supply shortages, and lower property quality. It could hinder development and actually exacerbate the core issue driving housing un-affordability which is a housing shortage. 

      I think what we're seeing in places with rent caps is that landlords are basically forced to make the maximum increase that they are allowed every year which in some cases may be more of an increase than they would have otherwise made.  

      No Steve. I mean, there IS a precedent set back in the 40's but it's actually the opposite of what your inferring. The precedent is that ONLY for extreme states of emergencies, ya-know like WWII. 

      The primary federal law that allowed the U.S. government to cap prices and rents during World War II was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. Enacted on January 30, 1942, this legislation authorized the Office of Price Administration (OPA) to set maximum price ceilings, combat inflation, and manage rationing of essential goods to support the war effort.

      the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) is the primary federal tool used to prevent hoarding and price gouging on scarce, designated materials. Instead, price caps are primarily handled through state-level anti-price-gouging statutes triggered by declared emergencies. Federal Mechanisms and Proposed Laws:

      • Defense Production Act (DPA): Used during emergencies like COVID-19 to stop hoarding and excessive pricing of specific, designated items (e.g., PPE, fuel).
      • Proposed Federal Legislation: Bills such as the "Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025" have been proposed to create a national ban on price gouging, treating it as an unfair act under the FTC Act.
      • Antitrust Laws: The Sherman Act can be used if retailers conspire to set high prices, but it does not apply to individual, unilateral price increases.

      All of these are COMPLETELY different things than what OP is speaking of in a National Rent Control for "funsies". 

      0Reply
    • Steve K.
      Realtor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 5k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Steve K.:

      Colorado has had a statewide ban on local rent control in place since 1981. Efforts to remove the ban and allow rent control throughout the years have consistently failed (including last year). So I don't think we will see it here anytime soon.

      A nationwide federal rent control mandate would be an issue of states rights vs. federal rights, although there is a precedent for it as I believe during both WW1 and WW2 rent increases were capped on the national level/ in most of the country. Biden flirted with the idea in 2024 but failed to gain traction with it due to widespread consensus that such measures disincentivize new housing construction, worsen supply shortages, and lower property quality. It could hinder development and actually exacerbate the core issue driving housing un-affordability which is a housing shortage. 

      I think what we're seeing in places with rent caps is that landlords are basically forced to make the maximum increase that they are allowed every year which in some cases may be more of an increase than they would have otherwise made.  

      No Steve. I mean, there IS a precedent set back in the 40's but it's actually the opposite of what your inferring. The precedent is that ONLY for extreme states of emergencies, ya-know like WWII. 

      The primary federal law that allowed the U.S. government to cap prices and rents during World War II was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. Enacted on January 30, 1942, this legislation authorized the Office of Price Administration (OPA) to set maximum price ceilings, combat inflation, and manage rationing of essential goods to support the war effort.

      the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) is the primary federal tool used to prevent hoarding and price gouging on scarce, designated materials. Instead, price caps are primarily handled through state-level anti-price-gouging statutes triggered by declared emergencies. Federal Mechanisms and Proposed Laws:

      • Defense Production Act (DPA): Used during emergencies like COVID-19 to stop hoarding and excessive pricing of specific, designated items (e.g., PPE, fuel).
      • Proposed Federal Legislation: Bills such as the "Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025" have been proposed to create a national ban on price gouging, treating it as an unfair act under the FTC Act.
      • Antitrust Laws: The Sherman Act can be used if retailers conspire to set high prices, but it does not apply to individual, unilateral price increases.

      All of these are COMPLETELY different things than what OP is speaking of in a National Rent Control for "funsies". 


      Topical comment considering we are seeing a dangerous precedent being set right now with rampant abuse of emergeny powers by the government. The Powers That Be are invoking emergency powers to justify basic policy agendas. Surely if every pet issue the sitting president has can meet the definition of an emergency, then the housing crisis could also require bypassing legislative and due process to get rent cap done, no? 

      0Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @Steve K.:
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Steve K.:

      Colorado has had a statewide ban on local rent control in place since 1981. Efforts to remove the ban and allow rent control throughout the years have consistently failed (including last year). So I don't think we will see it here anytime soon.

      A nationwide federal rent control mandate would be an issue of states rights vs. federal rights, although there is a precedent for it as I believe during both WW1 and WW2 rent increases were capped on the national level/ in most of the country. Biden flirted with the idea in 2024 but failed to gain traction with it due to widespread consensus that such measures disincentivize new housing construction, worsen supply shortages, and lower property quality. It could hinder development and actually exacerbate the core issue driving housing un-affordability which is a housing shortage. 

      I think what we're seeing in places with rent caps is that landlords are basically forced to make the maximum increase that they are allowed every year which in some cases may be more of an increase than they would have otherwise made.  

      No Steve. I mean, there IS a precedent set back in the 40's but it's actually the opposite of what your inferring. The precedent is that ONLY for extreme states of emergencies, ya-know like WWII. 

      The primary federal law that allowed the U.S. government to cap prices and rents during World War II was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. Enacted on January 30, 1942, this legislation authorized the Office of Price Administration (OPA) to set maximum price ceilings, combat inflation, and manage rationing of essential goods to support the war effort.

      the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) is the primary federal tool used to prevent hoarding and price gouging on scarce, designated materials. Instead, price caps are primarily handled through state-level anti-price-gouging statutes triggered by declared emergencies. Federal Mechanisms and Proposed Laws:

      • Defense Production Act (DPA): Used during emergencies like COVID-19 to stop hoarding and excessive pricing of specific, designated items (e.g., PPE, fuel).
      • Proposed Federal Legislation: Bills such as the "Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025" have been proposed to create a national ban on price gouging, treating it as an unfair act under the FTC Act.
      • Antitrust Laws: The Sherman Act can be used if retailers conspire to set high prices, but it does not apply to individual, unilateral price increases.

      All of these are COMPLETELY different things than what OP is speaking of in a National Rent Control for "funsies". 


      Topical comment considering we are seeing a dangerous precedent being set right now with rampant abuse of emergeny powers by the government. The Powers That Be are invoking emergency powers to justify basic policy agendas. Surely if every pet issue the sitting president has can meet the definition of an emergency, then the housing crisis could also require bypassing legislative and due process to get rent cap done, no? 


      In theory..... Yes, an Administration who's unabashed by flagrant misuse of Emergency Powers could, in theory, declare let's say an "Emergency Shortage of Big-Mac's" and order price capped at $1.00 per. 

      But ya-know we can talk theoretical what-if scenarios till the cows come home. 

      What matters is probability, the viable potential of such coming to pass. 

      And when talking a daisy-chain of extreme what-if's, with each layer to that what-if you multiply the improbability of it ever happening. 

      A misuse of Emergency powers to make a national Rent control...... They didn't even do that during COVID...... 

      States would flip out, rightfully so. 

      I do not see, at minimum, Texas and Florida allowing such, no-way no-how. 

      So the what-if your entertaining here Steve, let's keep it in context that it comes at a very real risk, if not price, of the Union breaking. That's real, very real at that level of infringement on states rights. 

      So in theory, sure. Same as in theory Canada could break up and half the provinces or more could become the 51st, 52nd etc states. 

      The Canada break-up is much more viable a potential than what your talking Steve, to put it all in context. 

      0Reply
    • John Clark
      Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Steve K.:
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Steve K.:

      Colorado has had a statewide ban on local rent control in place since 1981. Efforts to remove the ban and allow rent control throughout the years have consistently failed (including last year). So I don't think we will see it here anytime soon.

      A nationwide federal rent control mandate would be an issue of states rights vs. federal rights, although there is a precedent for it as I believe during both WW1 and WW2 rent increases were capped on the national level/ in most of the country. Biden flirted with the idea in 2024 but failed to gain traction with it due to widespread consensus that such measures disincentivize new housing construction, worsen supply shortages, and lower property quality. It could hinder development and actually exacerbate the core issue driving housing un-affordability which is a housing shortage. 

      I think what we're seeing in places with rent caps is that landlords are basically forced to make the maximum increase that they are allowed every year which in some cases may be more of an increase than they would have otherwise made.  

      No Steve. I mean, there IS a precedent set back in the 40's but it's actually the opposite of what your inferring. The precedent is that ONLY for extreme states of emergencies, ya-know like WWII. 

      The primary federal law that allowed the U.S. government to cap prices and rents during World War II was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. Enacted on January 30, 1942, this legislation authorized the Office of Price Administration (OPA) to set maximum price ceilings, combat inflation, and manage rationing of essential goods to support the war effort.

      the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) is the primary federal tool used to prevent hoarding and price gouging on scarce, designated materials. Instead, price caps are primarily handled through state-level anti-price-gouging statutes triggered by declared emergencies. Federal Mechanisms and Proposed Laws:

      • Defense Production Act (DPA): Used during emergencies like COVID-19 to stop hoarding and excessive pricing of specific, designated items (e.g., PPE, fuel).
      • Proposed Federal Legislation: Bills such as the "Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025" have been proposed to create a national ban on price gouging, treating it as an unfair act under the FTC Act.
      • Antitrust Laws: The Sherman Act can be used if retailers conspire to set high prices, but it does not apply to individual, unilateral price increases.

      All of these are COMPLETELY different things than what OP is speaking of in a National Rent Control for "funsies". 


      Topical comment considering we are seeing a dangerous precedent being set right now with rampant abuse of emergeny powers by the government. The Powers That Be are invoking emergency powers to justify basic policy agendas. Surely if every pet issue the sitting president has can meet the definition of an emergency, then the housing crisis could also require bypassing legislative and due process to get rent cap done, no? 


      In theory..... Yes, an Administration who's unabashed by flagrant misuse of Emergency Powers could, in theory, declare let's say an "Emergency Shortage of Big-Mac's" and order price capped at $1.00 per. 

      But ya-know we can talk theoretical what-if scenarios till the cows come home. 

      What matters is probability, the viable potential of such coming to pass. 

      And when talking a daisy-chain of extreme what-if's, with each layer to that what-if you multiply the improbability of it ever happening. 

      A misuse of Emergency powers to make a national Rent control...... They didn't even do that during COVID...... 

      States would flip out, rightfully so. 

      I do not see, at minimum, Texas and Florida allowing such, no-way no-how. 

      So the what-if your entertaining here Steve, let's keep it in context that it comes at a very real risk, if not price, of the Union breaking. That's real, very real at that level of infringement on states rights. 

      So in theory, sure. Same as in theory Canada could break up and half the provinces or more could become the 51st, 52nd etc states. 

      The Canada break-up is much more viable a potential than what your talking Steve, to put it all in context. 

      Canada would insist on the US adopting single-payer healthcare before it joined. If the US had single-payer healthcare, we would save $1.3 TRILLION (yes, a T) a year in healthcare costs.
      0Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @John Clark:
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Steve K.:
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Steve K.:

      Colorado has had a statewide ban on local rent control in place since 1981. Efforts to remove the ban and allow rent control throughout the years have consistently failed (including last year). So I don't think we will see it here anytime soon.

      A nationwide federal rent control mandate would be an issue of states rights vs. federal rights, although there is a precedent for it as I believe during both WW1 and WW2 rent increases were capped on the national level/ in most of the country. Biden flirted with the idea in 2024 but failed to gain traction with it due to widespread consensus that such measures disincentivize new housing construction, worsen supply shortages, and lower property quality. It could hinder development and actually exacerbate the core issue driving housing un-affordability which is a housing shortage. 

      I think what we're seeing in places with rent caps is that landlords are basically forced to make the maximum increase that they are allowed every year which in some cases may be more of an increase than they would have otherwise made.  

      No Steve. I mean, there IS a precedent set back in the 40's but it's actually the opposite of what your inferring. The precedent is that ONLY for extreme states of emergencies, ya-know like WWII. 

      The primary federal law that allowed the U.S. government to cap prices and rents during World War II was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. Enacted on January 30, 1942, this legislation authorized the Office of Price Administration (OPA) to set maximum price ceilings, combat inflation, and manage rationing of essential goods to support the war effort.

      the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) is the primary federal tool used to prevent hoarding and price gouging on scarce, designated materials. Instead, price caps are primarily handled through state-level anti-price-gouging statutes triggered by declared emergencies. Federal Mechanisms and Proposed Laws:

      • Defense Production Act (DPA): Used during emergencies like COVID-19 to stop hoarding and excessive pricing of specific, designated items (e.g., PPE, fuel).
      • Proposed Federal Legislation: Bills such as the "Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025" have been proposed to create a national ban on price gouging, treating it as an unfair act under the FTC Act.
      • Antitrust Laws: The Sherman Act can be used if retailers conspire to set high prices, but it does not apply to individual, unilateral price increases.

      All of these are COMPLETELY different things than what OP is speaking of in a National Rent Control for "funsies". 


      Topical comment considering we are seeing a dangerous precedent being set right now with rampant abuse of emergeny powers by the government. The Powers That Be are invoking emergency powers to justify basic policy agendas. Surely if every pet issue the sitting president has can meet the definition of an emergency, then the housing crisis could also require bypassing legislative and due process to get rent cap done, no? 


      In theory..... Yes, an Administration who's unabashed by flagrant misuse of Emergency Powers could, in theory, declare let's say an "Emergency Shortage of Big-Mac's" and order price capped at $1.00 per. 

      But ya-know we can talk theoretical what-if scenarios till the cows come home. 

      What matters is probability, the viable potential of such coming to pass. 

      And when talking a daisy-chain of extreme what-if's, with each layer to that what-if you multiply the improbability of it ever happening. 

      A misuse of Emergency powers to make a national Rent control...... They didn't even do that during COVID...... 

      States would flip out, rightfully so. 

      I do not see, at minimum, Texas and Florida allowing such, no-way no-how. 

      So the what-if your entertaining here Steve, let's keep it in context that it comes at a very real risk, if not price, of the Union breaking. That's real, very real at that level of infringement on states rights. 

      So in theory, sure. Same as in theory Canada could break up and half the provinces or more could become the 51st, 52nd etc states. 

      The Canada break-up is much more viable a potential than what your talking Steve, to put it all in context. 

      Canada would insist on the US adopting single-payer healthcare before it joined. If the US had single-payer healthcare, we would save $1.3 TRILLION (yes, a T) a year in healthcare costs.

      Failed nat. medical system meets failed nat. medical system and births a...... 

      0Reply
  • Marcus Auerbach
    Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes
    8mo

    It is more likely on a State and municipal level than federal, but frankly, it is one of the least concerning issues to me when it comes to Wisconsin landlord-tenant law. 

    We have seen some crazy proposals thrown around from lawmakers over the last few weeks, we have judges in Milwaukee how are in favor of concealing eviction records, since December we have a new and totally half baked fire-ordiance that is so ambigously written so the authorities are not clear on what to do, it seems to ask landlords to get a signature from tenants every 6 months disclosing that there are no sprinklers in the building.

    If you are in Wisconsin, please join RPAWI.org and support our efforts to not let nuisance bills get passed! We have been doing this for 51 years, it is slow and tedious, but very necessary.

    0Reply
  • Corina Eufinger
    Rental Property Investor · Oconomowoc, WI · Member since 2016 · 996 posts · 431 votes
    7mo

    Rent control is one of those well-intended by execution ideas. In NYC, it was enacted to address a severe housing shortage and high inflation, driving up prices where a typical wage worker couldn't afford to live in the city. Unfortunately, there were distinct flaws in the system. 1) There's no income limit for those units under rent control. A software engineer can rent an apartment for the same price as a waitress at a diner under a rent-controlled unit. 2) It could be passed down generationally..if you've ever watched Friends..ya know. 3) Adjustments to rent rate do not respond to inflation on a timely basis...like ever.  Honestly, the biggest issue is the rent control apartment being passed down generationally.  That's what's killing small-time landlords.  Reason TV did a great mini docu on what rent control has done to NYC landlords.  It's very common for smaller landlords to let vacated rent-controlled units sit because they can't afford to fix them based on decades of low rent.  Probably in the next 10 years, if NYC continues with its rent control in its current system, it will have succeeded in wiping out all smaller landlords because the only ones that will be able to afford it are larger companies that invest across multiple markets.  They have high cash flow from other areas, pour the money into their NYC units, and get to continually take a loss on that particular property.  Tenants will be a number rather than a person....and they will have a whole new problem on their hands.

    Not self-promoting here but I did a podcast episode on rent control earlier this month.That dives deeper into the issue.  It's on Spunky Pro Podcast on YT  (Channel name Spunky Life)and Spotify. A video version is coming out on YT later this week. 

    0Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @Corina Eufinger:

      Rent control is one of those well-intended by execution ideas. In NYC, it was enacted to address a severe housing shortage and high inflation, driving up prices where a typical wage worker couldn't afford to live in the city. Unfortunately, there were distinct flaws in the system. 1) There's no income limit for those units under rent control. A software engineer can rent an apartment for the same price as a waitress at a diner under a rent-controlled unit. 2) It could be passed down generationally..if you've ever watched Friends..ya know. 3) Adjustments to rent rate do not respond to inflation on a timely basis...like ever.  Honestly, the biggest issue is the rent control apartment being passed down generationally.  That's what's killing small-time landlords.  Reason TV did a great mini docu on what rent control has done to NYC landlords.  It's very common for smaller landlords to let vacated rent-controlled units sit because they can't afford to fix them based on decades of low rent.  Probably in the next 10 years, if NYC continues with its rent control in its current system, it will have succeeded in wiping out all smaller landlords because the only ones that will be able to afford it are larger companies that invest across multiple markets.  They have high cash flow from other areas, pour the money into their NYC units, and get to continually take a loss on that particular property.  Tenants will be a number rather than a person....and they will have a whole new problem on their hands.

      Not self-promoting here but I did a podcast episode on rent control earlier this month.That dives deeper into the issue.  It's on Spunky Pro Podcast on YT  (Channel name Spunky Life)and Spotify. A video version is coming out on YT later this week. 


      "Rent control is one of those well-intended by execution ideas. In NYC, it was enacted to address a severe housing shortage and high inflation, driving up prices where a typical wage worker couldn't afford to live in the city."

      I strongly disagree, and believe logic, facts, history and math support my side. 

      First, I disagree that Rent Control is "well-intended". Oh, I am fully aware that is the hook it's sold under, but just because it's a marketing hook doesn't mean there is an ounce of intention behind it. 

      In your example, what Rent Control TRULY is, is a TAX. 100%. The intention was to transfer the burden of cost from 1 party (ie big business) unto another party (ie the average schmoe). 

      You detailed the evidence yourself "... where a typical wage worker couldn't afford to live in the city.". 

      Who's problem is that? They typical wage earner? Who would relocate to where things are much better? No. That is an employer problem, a problem for those who want to continue operations in that specific locked geo-location BUT who don't want to absorb the fair market cost of labor. 

      So instead of having to absorb that cost of labor, or relocate operations, via Rent Controls they passed the cost onto someone else. 

      That is a tax. 

      There is no well-intention to that unless your talking about the politicians well-intentions toward there significant donor, and with that themselves, then sure. But for any other, no, it's an "F-em" kinda thing. 

      Now to the heart of things. 

      As you yourself said; "it was enacted to address a severe housing shortage and high inflation."

      Did Rent Control INCREASE housing inventory? 

      Did Rent Control induce deflation? 

      No. It actually REDUCED inventory as those unit's became held on lock AND it induced INFLATION. 

      This is not complex secret history, it's not found hiding deep in the Vatican vaults somewhere. It's known historical fact. This IS the market result of Rent Control's literally every single time it's utilized. 

      So the whole well intended piece is again, BS. 

      Look, if a kid has a mosquito on there face and I tell them "hold on, let me help you with that" and I a near 200lb guy "remove it" via a left hook..... Ok it's a massive stretch but one could try arguing it was a mistake. Do it 2, 5, 20, 50 times, no, NO you CAN'T call it "well intended" it's just psychotic. That is effectively Rent Controls. 

      The answer to fixing or improving (a) shortage of housing and (b) inflation in housing aquisition costs, is BLARINGLY obvious! 

      What did they do post WWII when knew there was a flood of GI's coming home? Did they do Rent Controls? Did Marxism run wild? NO! They built flippin housing units! In-mass. 

      They consulted with experts, leveraged resources, and built, Built, BUILT! 

      So it's not even like this is all new theory stuff. It's an obvious truth and fact of this little thing I like to call math. If the problem is not enough homes, making costs for housing go way up due to supply-demand curve..... You build MORE. 

      How do you build more? Either front end or back end. Make the resources more available to build and given the demand exists, vhuallah. Or, on back end, you throw $ at it, again, making scaling viable via removing financial hurdles. 

      Rent Control, ie TAX, is an EXTRACTOR from the economy. The result is all but mathematical; decline, decay, stagnation. 

      So no, sorry Corina, I won't hope on that bandwagon of excuses with you. Leadership knew what they were doing. Your just buying the marketing over facts. I'm not. 

      1Reply
  • Corina Eufinger
    Rental Property Investor · Oconomowoc, WI · Member since 2016 · 996 posts · 431 votes
    7mo

    Not looking to recruit anyone to any bandwagon.  Just observing some flaws I've seen in the system.  I am anti-rent control but I'm also not out here trying to make waves. Have a good week!

    0Reply
    • James Hamling
      Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      7mo
      Quote from @Corina Eufinger:

      Not looking to recruit anyone to any bandwagon.  Just observing some flaws I've seen in the system.  I am anti-rent control but I'm also not out here trying to make waves. Have a good week!


      Make waves! Debate is how better things are discovered. 

      0Reply
  • Aaron Gordy
    Real Estate Broker · Austin, TX · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    7mo

    Rent control causes unintended consequences that are rough. Witness Steve Croman. There are workarounds to getting tenants out if one doesn't like the tenants like using jackhammer at odd times of the night near the tenants door...lol! But that is only possible where the occupancy is high and the tenants don't have as many choices which occurs with limited supply constraints. If NYC opened its doors wide to construction then developers would get super excited and build until they overbuild. Yes, there are still a lot of real estate players in NYC making money but they may have a different set of operations then me.  

    I think that most cities/states see the unintended consequences and choose not to go that route. Thank goodness that is the case in Texas. Developers will overbuild until the banks pull back and its typically the banks that will slow it down but there have been historical examples to the contrary when the S&L crisis wiped out development in Texas for a few years. 


    In Texas, it makes more sense to air grievances/concerns about consequences of actual bad local policies to the local and state level politicians. 


    Since Texas, in general is pretty much build until the market says otherwise I stick to the saying... 

    If a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt

    1Reply
  • Rachid AbadliBusiness Member
    Investor · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2024 · 129 posts · 36 votes
    2w

    I'm a landlord in Sacramento — one of the cities where rent control went from “that'll never happen here” to reality overnight with AB 1482.

    @Greg Scott — the Austin supply argument is correct in theory but ignores the political timeline. Building takes 3–5 years. Elections happen every 2. Politicians will always reach for the lever they can pull this cycle, and rent caps are that lever. St. Paul backtracking is the exception, not the rule — most cities that implement rent control never repeal it.

    What I'd add to this conversation: the operational burden is what nobody talks about. Rent control isn't just a cap on what you can charge — it's a compliance regime. In California, I track different caps for different cities, different notice periods, different exemptions (new construction, single-family, owner-occupied). Each unit in my portfolio has its own maximum allowable increase based on its jurisdiction and CPI. Get it wrong and the tenant can claw back the overage plus penalties.

    For landlords in states without rent control today: the best thing you can do is get your systems in order now. Document everything. Track your lease dates, increases, and notices. When it comes to your state (and it will), you don't want to be the landlord scrambling to figure out which of your units are covered and which aren't.

    LeaseBase.ai
    View Page
    1Reply
  • Jonathan Greer
    Member since 2026 · 59 posts · 16 votes
    2w

    Hi Justin,

    Interesting perspective. I agree that investors have to think beyond today’s rental environment and consider how future policy changes could impact their strategy.

    One option worth exploring is co-living or room-by-room rentals. For the right property, having multiple rental agreements and income streams can give owners another way to structure the investment while navigating changes in the traditional rental market.

    It's not the right fit for every property or investor, but I think it's an interesting strategy to have on the table as owners look at long-term ROI and risk.

    Would be happy to connect and compare notes or discuss what this could look like for different types of properties.

    1Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free