Rent is taking a bigger bite out of paychecks across the country, and the reason isn’t hard to understand: We haven’t built enough housing to keep up with demand.
That can make rent control sound appealing. If rents are too high, why not just cap them?
The Democratic Socialists of America are trying to make that case. Their 2026 platform calls for universal rent control, tighter restrictions on investment properties, and more publicly owned housing.
But a price cap doesn’t create more housing. And when government limits what housing providers can charge without fixing the underlying shortage, it can make the problem worse.
Here are four reasons why.
1. Rent control can shrink the housing supply
Rent control can help some tenants stay in homes they might otherwise have to leave. But those benefits can come with costs for everyone looking for housing later.
For example, in 1994, San Francisco expanded rent control to more types of buildings. That expansion led landlords to reduce rental housing supply by 15%. Some chose to live in their properties or removed units from the rental market in other ways.
The drop in supply pushed citywide rents up 5.1%.
The lesson is clear: When fewer homes are available, renters have to compete for a smaller pool.
2. It can discourage new construction
Builders look at what a project will cost and what they’re likely to earn afterward.
When government puts strict limits on future rents, some projects become less profitable.
St. Paul, Minnesota, offers a recent example.
Voters approved a 3% annual rent cap in 2021. The city had permitted more than 2,000 new housing units in both 2020 and 2021, but permits fell to just 404 units in 2024 and 357 in 2025.
Developers and property owners repeatedly pointed to rent stabilization as a reason investors became hesitant to finance new projects.
St. Paul later exempted new construction from the policy, and developers began returning.
3. Maintenance becomes harder to keep up with.
Roofs leak, plumbing breaks, insurance, property taxes, labor, and materials get more expensive over time.
When rents can’t adjust alongside those costs, owners have less room to pay for repairs and improvements.
In New York City, owners of rent-stabilized buildings need state approval before raising rents to recover the cost of major improvements like a new roof or boiler.
When owners have limited ability to recover major repair costs, they may delay or scale back improvements.
Over time, that can mean delayed upgrades, less reinvestment, and older buildings that are harder to keep in good shape.
4. It can make housing more expensive for everyone else
Rent control can create two groups of renters: people who already have rent-controlled housing and people trying to find it.
Existing tenants may pay less, while new renters face fewer available homes and more competition.
That’s why controlling prices alone doesn’t fix the underlying problem. If demand keeps growing while supply stays tight, people searching for a home pay the price.
The better answer is more housing
If we want housing costs to come down, we need to make it easier to build more homes.
That means removing barriers that have restricted supply for decades:
- Reform zoning rules that block new homes
- Speed up slow and unpredictable permitting
- Reduce unnecessary regulations that raise construction costs
- Give builders more freedom to respond when demand grows
More homes mean more choices for renters and more pressure on housing providers to compete on price and quality.
That’s very different from socialists’ universal rent control and government-owned housing. One gives government more control over the housing we already have. The other makes it easier to build more of what people need.
Bottom line: You can’t solve a housing shortage by making it harder to provide housing.
America has long trusted people to build, invest, and solve problems. Housing should be no different.
If you believe free people can build better solutions than government planners, join the fight against socialism and add your name.