Today’s reading gave a thorough overview of the rent regulation history of New York City, and how it evolved into its current form.
The piece that stuck the most with me were two small paragraphs, the first of which stated: “Most interventionist measures and public sector activities have received widespread acceptance as necessary and proper” – a claim I was slightly skeptical about, because when hasn’t someone complained about government spending and overstepping. However, the reading provided, what I think to be, pretty solid examples: minimum wage laws, milk price supports, and regulated rates for utilities and cabs. Perhaps minimum wage talks gather more heat than the authors would have liked for this argument, but I have never heard anyone argue about milk, utility, and taxi prices (with the exception of when Uber started threatening the industry), despite being regulated as well. So why is rent the exception to the rule? I think the answer lies in a combination of a few reasons: 1) rent is one of the biggest expenses so there’s a lot of money at stake for both tenants and landlords 2) Everyone is affected by rent regulation from the tenant who has a rent regulated apartment, to the tenant who wants one, the landlord who has a rent regulated apartment, to the one who competes with them on the market (although in NYC the demand is so high, I don’t think the competition is much of a problem). 3) There’s the issue of choice. If you can’t live here, then move. There are very few alternatives for milk, utilities, and cabs, but for homes… they’re everywhere! I think that sentiment plays a role. I’m sure there are plenty of other explanations for why rent regulation is the exception for widespread acceptance. In any case, I believe that it will continue to be a heated topic of discussion for as long as it persists