The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Boston Globe Article on Why Massachusetts Should Reject Rent Control, and Instead End Exclusionary Zoning
Rent control would only make the housing crisis worse. Zoning reform would make things better.

Today, the Boston Globe published my article on why rent control is a terrible approach to addressing the housing crisis. Massachusetts should instead ban exclusionary zoning. Here is an excerpt:
Massachusetts may have a rent control measure on its 2026 ballot, which would restrict rent increases throughout the state. Advocates claim rent control would alleviate the state's housing crisis. They couldn't be more wrong. Rent control is a proven failure that actually exacerbates housing shortages. The state should instead ban exclusionary zoning, which restricts the types of housing that can be built in a given area. That could truly alleviate shortages and make housing more affordable.
Rent control is condemned by a broad consensus of economists and housing experts across the political spectrum. Jason Furman, former chair of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, notes that "[r]ent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit." A recent meta-study in the Journal of Housing Economics found that while it effectively slows rent increases in controlled units, it has multiplenegative effects, including reduction in the quantity and quality of available housing….
By contrast, ending exclusionary zoning across the state would greatly increase housing construction and reduce rents, while empowering property owners to have greater control over their land….
Extensive research by economists and other scholars finds that exclusionary zoning massively increases housing prices and prevents millions of people from "moving to opportunity" — taking up residence in places where they could find better jobs and educational options. Exclusionary zoning has a long history of being used to keep out minorities and poor people. It also greatly increases homelessness by pricing low-income people out of the housing market.
I grew up in Massachusetts — where my parents and I arrived as poor recent immigrants in 1980 — and owe much to the opportunities the state has to offer. Curbing exclusionary zoning would help ensure that more people of all backgrounds could access those opportunities….
Zoning is often viewed as a tool to protect the interests of current homeowners, many of whom support "NIMBY" ("not in my backyard") restrictions on building. But many homeowners would have much to gain from ending restrictions on housing construction. They would benefit from added economic growth and innovation, increases in the value of their property if it could be used to build multifamily housing, and lower housing costs for their children.
Current property owners would also benefit from having the right to use their land as they see fit. Advocates of local control of land use should embrace YIMBYism ("yes in my backyard"): Letting property owners decide how to use their own land is a far greater level of local control than allowing local governments to impose one-size-fits-all regulations.
YIMBY zoning reform unites experts across the political spectrum. Supporters range from progressives such as Furman and former president Joe Biden's Council of Economic Advisers to free-market advocates such as Edward Glaeser of Harvard, one of the world's leading housing economists….
There is much room for zoning-reform progress in Massachusetts. The National Zoning Atlas recently surveyed the state's zoning rules and found that about 63 percent of the state's residential land is restricted to single-family homes only (including some where multifamily construction is permitted only after a special public hearing, which can be easily manipulated by NIMBY forces to block development). Many communities also have other severe restrictions, such as minimum lot sizes and parking mandates (imposed on 76 percent of residential land).
I would add that most of these problems are far from unique to Massachusetts. Other states should also reject rent control and instead embrace YIMBYism.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If judges could get their act together and rule that rent control is a taking (which it is), that would probably reduce the size of the homeless population significantly.
How do you figure? Lots of homeless people live in places with no rent control. Of places that have rent control, most of them don't apply it to new construction.
The effects of rent control on housing supply are well documented.
Yes, but there's not that many rent controlled units in the US so it's hard to see how this would have a significant effect on homelessness.
And, once again, the fact that most places that do have rent control don't regulate new construction means that the effects on housing creation don't really apply.
Not well-documented by Massachusetts-based evidence. Not at all. More the opposite.
Note to economic ideologues, do not accept as credible any notion that you can reason from economic axioms to establish facts. Do that, and you risk watching experience-based counter-examples blow up your axioms.
re: "Of places that have rent control, most of them don't apply it to new construction."
Interesting claim and not what I've seen in the news and housing reports at all. What I see is a predominance of reguatory requirements to make a certain fraction of new construction "affordable" which is rent control by a different name. What is the source of your claim that new construction is free of rent controls?
To your other point, no one is claiming that the absence of rent control is a panacea. There will always be homeless people in a free society. (To be free, there must be the freedom to fail.) The relevant question is whether there are more or less homeless in jurisdictions with and without rent control. The research on that question is overwhelming - rent control shinks housing supply, disincents maintenance and over time increases homelessness.
All of the rent control regimes I am familiar with (New York, San Francisco, LA and Oregon) do not apply to new construction and have not for several decades. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but doubt they represent a significant portion of the countries' rent controlled units.
Requiring affordable units is quite common, but (a) is generally not actually required and is instead associated with some sort of tax incentive or zoning variance, (b) generally applies to only a fraction of the units in a new development. In general, it seems like the incentives are "good enough" because many developers opt for them versus building pure market rate housing.
Professor Somin is right that getting rid of exclusionary zoning would be very helpful and would get rid of one class of incentives (zoning variances). I'm supportive of that approach, FWIW.
On the topic of homelessness in particular, the research does not seem to be nearly as conclusive as you think it is. Neither of the first two studies I found on the topic find an overall correlation between rent control and levels of homelessness:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046298000349
https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-control-literature-review-final2.pdf
Actually, discouraging maintenance appears to be one of the few practical ways to preserve location of affordable housing in high-amenity neighborhoods. Deferred maintenance is the opposite of gentrification. And there is no doubt that gentrification makes previously-affordable rents more expensive, thus driving out less-prosperous former inhabitants.
Rent control should always be rejected, because it doesn't work and makes the problem worse. It misunderstands the market forces that cause rents (and housing prices) to spiral upwards. It's not a legal question, it's basic economics.
It grossly misunderstands basic market forces. It would be like trying to solve the health care problem by mandating that health insurance cannot cost more than $100/mo. or solving high grocery prices by mandating that a cart full of groceries cost no more than $20.
And I'm not even talking about a subsidy; just a plain decree to health insurance companies and grocery stores that they are forbidden to charge more. If you can immediately see the problem there, that's the same problem with rent control.
I agree completely with Thomas Sowell, the intellectual who has pushed both of these measures for over a quarter of a century.
If only there were a way to reduce demand for housing. Maybe there's some group of people that isn't legally eligible to reside in Massachusetts. If those people were, for example, looking for housing in other countries, demand and prices in Massachusetts would both fall.
Yes, deporting illegals would be a big help. Somin's proposals would lower everyone's standard of living.
@Ilya the Globe has a brutal paywall (possibly because I'm physically in Boston right now) -- any way you could either syndicate the full article or get a gift link for us?
Could Somin please define what he means by, "exclusionary zoning," and demonstrate with evidence where in Massachusetts he thinks it gets practiced.