I can go into more specifics around SF rent controls, but it’s a much more landlord-friendly system than New York’s rent stabilization.
The broader point to make though is that rent control has been a perennial bogeyman. In reality, it’s very poorly understood, the Econ 101 model is dominant in the discourse (even though there’s not a single jurisdiction in the United States that subject new construction to rent control without a tax abatement or zoning bonus - rendering the conclusions of that model irrelevant). Regardless, only 35% of Americans are renters and the vast majority of them are non-controlled (market or subsidized) apartments. It’s just not the big problem you think it would be in an introductory economics class.
Economists are just starting to realize this and they’re focusing their efforts on real distortions in the housing market like land use, which has been criminally understudied until recently.
Rent control in SF is not “extremely strict.” Units are allowed to be marked to market rents upon vacancy.
Moreover rent controls don’t impact supply. Developers are still building apartments in SF because new buildings aren’t subject to rent controls. They haven’t categorically exited the market. If they have any difficulty buildings, it’s almost entirely zoning and permitting.
Zoning is a far larger issue and the authors are correct in spending far more time on it.
Interesting review. I largely agree with your analysis. I wanted to like the book, but the authors seemed to be more afraid of scaring off any Left-of-Center readers rather than really promoting Abundance. Abundance clearly does not come solely from a government that builds things.
You and your readers might be interested in reading my review here:
I can go into more specifics around SF rent controls, but it’s a much more landlord-friendly system than New York’s rent stabilization.
The broader point to make though is that rent control has been a perennial bogeyman. In reality, it’s very poorly understood, the Econ 101 model is dominant in the discourse (even though there’s not a single jurisdiction in the United States that subject new construction to rent control without a tax abatement or zoning bonus - rendering the conclusions of that model irrelevant). Regardless, only 35% of Americans are renters and the vast majority of them are non-controlled (market or subsidized) apartments. It’s just not the big problem you think it would be in an introductory economics class.
Economists are just starting to realize this and they’re focusing their efforts on real distortions in the housing market like land use, which has been criminally understudied until recently.
Rent control in SF is not “extremely strict.” Units are allowed to be marked to market rents upon vacancy.
Moreover rent controls don’t impact supply. Developers are still building apartments in SF because new buildings aren’t subject to rent controls. They haven’t categorically exited the market. If they have any difficulty buildings, it’s almost entirely zoning and permitting.
Zoning is a far larger issue and the authors are correct in spending far more time on it.
Interesting review. I largely agree with your analysis. I wanted to like the book, but the authors seemed to be more afraid of scaring off any Left-of-Center readers rather than really promoting Abundance. Abundance clearly does not come solely from a government that builds things.
You and your readers might be interested in reading my review here:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-the-democrats-embrace-abundance