The U.S. housing market has become increasingly unaffordable. As more people become renters after failing to qualify for a mortgage, the supply of affordable rental units has decreased. [1] Consequently, some have turned to government-mandated rent control as a policy solution. The policy can take many shapes, from mandating specific prices to banning further rises in payment (the latter is more common). The policy does yield at least short-term results. Rent control has reduced housing costs and improved stability for its beneficiaries. [2,3] However, substantial evidence has shown rent control to be ineffective and counterproductive in the long run. Rent control often misses its targeted groups. Due to the below-market prices, people living in rent-controlled units have little incentive to move out. In the long run, reduced mobility can lead to significant mismatches between renters and rental units. A small-sized household may choose to occupy a big apartment for its mandated affordability, which forces a big family to squeeze into a small apartment. [4] The mismatch also leads rental control to benefit general long-term renters instead of specific groups in need. A study of rent control policies in Cambridge, MA shows that targeted groups (the elderly, low-income groups, and families) are almost equally likely to be in rent-controlled units as in not controlled ones. [1] Rental control generates significant negative externalities. With rent control in place, landlords may become incentivized to make up for their losses in other places, such as their properties in areas outside of rent control. Perhaps, as a result, renters in non-controlled units tend to pay more than they would have without the rent control policy. [1] The policy may also add burdens to adjacent homeowners. Rental control in Cambridge back in the 1990s devalued properties by $3 billion, of which $2 billion fell to people in non-controlled areas. Moreover, only about $300 million of that cost became benefits to the renters in controlled units. [4] Thus, rent control imposes significant loss to local homeowners, with limited benefits to renters. Rent control may depress the supply of rental units in the long run. A study of rent control policies in San Francisco shows a 15% decrease of renters living in controlled units. This decrease occurred because many owners chose to convert the apartments into condos, move into the units themselves, or build new structures, as responses to the policy. [4] This strain on housing supply could lead to a further decrease in the affordability of housing. For these reasons, government-mandated rent control is a bad policy. [1]. Tatian, Peter. 2013. "Is Rent Control Good Policy?". Blog. The Blog Of The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/rent-control-good-policy. [2]. Turner, Margery Austin. 1988. "Rent Control And The Availability Of Affordable Housing In The District Of Columbia''. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/rent-control-and-availability-affordable-housing-district-columbia/view/full_report. [3]. Rajasekaran, Prasanna, Mark Treskon, and Solomon Greene. 2019. "Rent Control: What Does The Research Tell Us About The Effectiveness Of Local Action?". The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/rent-control-what-does-research-tell-us-about-effectiveness-local-action. [4]. Diamond, Rebecca. 2018. "What Does Economic Evidence Tell Us About The Effects Of Rent Control?". The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/.