Some Michigan legislators have pursued laws that would allow cities across the state to establish rent control or subject rent approvals to a state board. The government could cap how much rent could increase.

The idea has some appeal. People are mad about high rental costs and want government to do something. So is rent control the answer? Anyone who thinks so should remember these words from the economist Thomas Sowell: “There are no solutions — only trade-offs.”

If controlling the rate by which rental rates can go up is the solution to high rents, it’s time to consider the trade-offs of that policy and ask whether they’re worth it.

There is a massive amount of research on rent control policies, with economists and researchers from across ideological lines having looked at them. A recent comprehensive review by Konstantin Kholodilin of the German Institute for Economic Research examined all 206 rent control papers published since 1967.

There is strong agreement about the effects of rent control, according to this review. Rent control:

• Limits price increases
• Amplifies housing shortages, which means fewer options for everyone
• Limits personal ability, as people who get a rent-controlled unit have a strong incentive to stay there, limiting their own mobility and making it harder for others to move
• Leads to slums, as “rent control leads to a deterioration in the quality of those dwellings subject to regulations.”

These are not good trade-offs. Rent control remains a terrible idea that is counterproductive to the goals of its proponents.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.