The honest evaluation of those who advocate for “rent control,” such as Governor Healey of Massachusetts and Mayor Wu of Boston and their ilk, is that their cognitive ability is below the population mean—positioned to the left on the IQ distribution; in short, they are dumb.
Cities are complex organisms. They grow and thrive because people take risks, work hard, and respond to incentives. When policy ignores these dynamics, prosperity falters. Nowhere is this more evident than with rent control.
Supporters of rent control often argue from emotion rather than understanding. They want housing to be affordable for everyone—a noble wish—but they fail to see how price ceilings distort incentives, choke supply, and ultimately make cities poorer and less livable.
To explain why, let’s use two simple thought experiments.
Village One: Massachusetts — How Incentives Shape Effort
Imagine a small, prosperous village of 200 people. Some are industrious, some less so, and rewards generally match effort. Among the women, ten dedicate themselves to becoming highly attractive: they stay fit, develop style, and make themselves appealing partners. Around fifteen of the remaining women are naturally beautiful. Another fifteen aren’t particularly attractive but try to make up for the deficit by learning to be pleasant and useful. The rest do little to improve themselves.
The men split into two main groups. About thirty are naturally handsome and athletic but not especially capable otherwise. Most of the rest are average-looking, and around fifteen of the men in this group are clever, hardworking, and successful in business. Predictably, the ten attractive women tend to choose men who either excel financially or combine competence with charm.
Soon, discontent brews. The majority complain: “It’s unfair that only a few women are desired and only a few men are rich and chosen.” They demand new rules to “level the playing field.” In response, the village passes a lottery system: the most attractive women must now pair with random men, while the successful men are excluded to make outcomes “fairer.”
What happens next? Incentives evaporate. Women stop investing in beauty and self-improvement—why bother if choice is randomized? Men stop striving to become successful—wealth no longer attracts better partners. Over a few years, ambition fades, productivity drops, and the once-thriving village stagnates.
This is how social engineering driven by envy and pettiness kills the drive that sustains prosperity.
Village Two: Boston — How Cities Actually Grow
Now picture a thriving city—call it Boston. People arrive with ambition. Some launch businesses, invent new products, or master trades. Jobs multiply, art and entertainment flourish, and wealth builds. Housing developers respond by building at many price points: small starter units, comfortable townhomes, and luxury apartments.
The most desirable housing—near jobs, culture, and amenities—sits at the city’s center. Those who work smart, innovate, or invest well compete to live there. Demand rises, and landlords react rationally: they raise rents or subdivide spaces to accommodate more people. Taxes and maintenance costs increase too, but so do profits. Meanwhile, other residents push outward or choose smaller spaces until they can afford better.
This process—people striving for upward mobility, builders trying to meet demand, and prices signaling where to invest—isn’t perfect, but it’s what keeps the city dynamic, dense, and economically alive.
What Rent Control Does
Rent control short-circuits this system. By capping what owners can charge, it removes the incentive to build, upgrade, or even maintain housing. Politicians, whose electability depends on renters who greatly outnumber owners, cater to renters’ interests—keeping rents low by capping increases at levels that soon become unrealistic. The tyranny of the masses wins. Owners stop caring. Developers redirect capital elsewhere. Tenants stay put long after they’ve outgrown their apartments because cheap rent is too good to leave. Neighborhoods stop evolving. Supply stagnates, quality declines, and over time the city faces exactly the problem rent control was meant to solve: scarcity and unaffordability.
It’s the same dynamic we saw in the first village. When effort and risk-taking stop paying off, ambition dries up. The winners aren’t future renters—they’re those lucky enough to snag controlled units early and hold on forever, often at the expense of newcomers and the city’s vitality.
The Larger Lesson
Prosperity isn’t an accident. It’s the product of human effort responding to incentives. Intervene clumsily—whether by forcing dating lotteries or freezing rents—and you discourage the very behaviors that create growth.
Rent control sounds compassionate, but it quietly dismantles the forces that make cities vibrant and innovative. Over time, it protects insiders, punishes builders, and leaves everyone else with fewer choices and worse housing.
If we want affordable, thriving cities, the answer isn’t to strangle supply. It’s to let ambition, investment, and building flourish—while using smart, targeted support for those who truly need help.
Cities die when we misunderstand how they live, and those in politics and “rent control” advocates misunderstand cities. Perhaps the reason is that most are Marxists or opportunists who could care less about the damage they do.