I came across this slick animation about rent control, which is currently deployed in New York and Sweden, and the results don't seem that great. This option hasn't come up in local debates but I'm curious what would need to happen for it to somehow make it onto a pollie's discussion agenda? The info I've across suggest its a bad idea, which is why I'm concerned it'll be picked up and paraded as a solution to rental affordability here. In a nutshell it's artifically capping the rent landlords can charge, and make rent more affordable for those lucky to be involved. Impact: + some folks catch a break and don't need to stress about the majority of their pay going to rent + tenants have a strong incentive to stay given rent is low, even if life circumstances suggest they're better of moving elsewhere, or downsizing. - landlords have no incentive to make repairs or improvements as they know the tenant won't leave and give up their low rent arrangement, and because cashflow becomes capped - rent controlled areas become undesirable given the lower rental return - developers have no incentive to build to add to rent-control stock, instead opting for luxury apartments that fetch a higher price and attract higher rent - adds to housing stock shortage, difficulty in new arrivals finding rent The rent control animation: Opinion piece about rent control in Sweden: Swedish Rent Control experience a warning for Sydney - The Urbanist What do you think?
Used to apply in NSW pre-Residential Tenancies Act where there were Protected Tenancies. Very few of these exist today, I have probably come across less than an handful in my time.
If an animation can explain how it works to an average viewer, hopefully thats enough of a reality check for it to not be proposed.