In areas with legal restrictions, it sounds like the solution is to fix the legal restrictions. The law can be changed, after all; geography is a little less malleable.

You say that like it's a simple thing, it's not. Here is a concrete example of what I mean. In NYC rent control/stabilization artificially limits the supply and increases the cost of non-stabilized units. If rent control was eliminated rental values across the city would plummet in non-stabilized units. As a result property values in non-stabilized buildings would plummet as well. You could easily trigger a panic as landlords try to sell off property that is declining in value. There are unintended side effects to changing laws, it's never as simple as just fixing a legal restriction.

I fail to see how ending rent control would hurt property values. If anything, it should increase them; now there is not a multigenerational pseudo property right that can be passed on. You can see this in listings; rent controlled units sell for way below normal prices because of the threat that the tenant can invite a relative to stay and then pass on their sweet deal for another generation, all on the property owners' dime.

Rent stabilization is similar. It would raise the property values in rent stabilized buildings. It would also raise rents in the rent stabilized buildings.

Where it would hurt is market rate apartments. They would likely see rents fall over time given the market is no longer bifurcated.

To ease the transition, a phase out would probably be in order, but given that a phase out can be terminated it would probably have to be one big shove out the door.

> If rent control was eliminated

Do you mean rent control and rent stabilization? As far as I can tell, rent-controlled units make up something like 2% of all units.

> rent-controlled units make up something like 2% of all units

True, but that is actually a great deal of lost income for the landlords in those cases. Anecdotally, of the number of people I've heard of living in rent controlled apartments, I've never heard of rent over $500, including 2 and 3 bedroom apartments in primo neighborhoods. Numbers like that are just _absurd_ given what I'm paying for my 1 bedroom in an "up and coming" neighborhood in queens

My question is, then, how would a paltry 2% increase in available units - assuming landlords instantly kick those folks out - cause the rental market to suddenly get that much cheaper?

Eliminating rent control wouldn't do much to lower rents given the relatively small numbers of units. They should definitely end it going forward, though.

Getting rid of rent stabilization, which is roughly half of all rental units in NYC IIRC, would have a huge effect, both positive and negative.

My prediction is that after a few years of adjustment following its end, the average paid rent would be about the same but the average advertised rent would be much lower.

All renters would equally feel the misery of rising rents, so I'd expect the political landscape would be very different with regards to feelings towards building more housing.

Yes, I should have been more clear. I meant both.

So the solution to the problem of property owners operating in violation of the law is to change unrelated laws to deter them?

That's like trying to stop your town's speeding problem by writing more parking tickets.

I have no idea what you think I said.