The second generation of rent control policies has evolved into more complicated issues at hand than its predecessor. Whereas the first generation of rent control was spurred by wartime emergencies and ensure the interest of nation’s defensive capabilities, the present day rent control is put in place as means to protect average citizens in this world of increasing wealth gaps. To validate the existence of such regulations, we then have to look at how effective this sort of protection is. The argument presented by those opposing the regulation lies in the fact that it’s a rather short-sighted remedy and although it is able to keep homelessness low, it adds on to the burden of a free market because it results in less housing being build and discourages mobility of renters. I think such regulation should not be a federal issue because demand varies from municipals to municipals. For example, the needs of New York City low-income residents is vastly different from those of a Washington D.C. residents. The municipal should have the right to determine whatever course of action is deemed appropriate. They would also need to enforce stricter control on the types of resident that could live in those rent subsidized housings. The policies right now is not benefiting those who have the direst need; as minorities and other low-income citizens do not have the knowledge that such policies exist to protect their well-being. I think those are the two points could help improve the current dialogue of rent regulations.