Does rent control cause homelessness
Executive summary
The academic and policy record does not support a single, universal answer: rent control can, under certain designs and market conditions, contribute to higher homelessness by shrinking the effective supply of available rental units and raising prices in the uncontrolled sector, but it can also prevent evictions and relieve cost burdens that are a primary driver of homelessness when paired with other policies [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the strongest evidence says about supply effects and homelessness
Several empirical studies find that strict rent controls reduce rental vacancy rates, create incentives for landlords to convert or withdraw units from the market, and thereby increase homelessness modestly—Grimes and Chressanthis and other analyses report a statistically significant positive effect of rent control on homelessness, and classic models link lower vacancy to higher uncontrolled-sector rents [1] [2]; policy reviews also note that controls can benefit long-standing tenants while reducing mobility and the flow of units to those in need [5].
2. Why many researchers and advocates dispute a simple causal link
Other scholars and subsequent work reject the hypothesis that rent control by itself causes homelessness, criticizing earlier methods and pointing to measurement problems in homelessness data; alternative analyses that control for endogeneity and voter selection find only small effects and emphasize that city-level studies can produce different results than person-level data [1] [2] [5].
3. The countervailing mechanism: affordability and eviction prevention
A separate and influential strand of research and advocacy argues the dominant driver of homelessness is unaffordable housing, not rent regulations per se, and that lowering housing costs reduces homelessness—state-level regressions estimate that a 10% reduction in housing costs could lower homelessness rates by roughly 4.5% [4]; policy analysts and tenant advocates emphasize that rent control, especially when combined with eviction protections, keeps people housed and reduces displacement [6] [7] [8].
4. Design and local context matter far more than the label “rent control”
The literature and policy groups converge on a key point: the effect of rent regulation depends on details—who is covered, vacancy decontrol rules, duration of tenancy protections, and whether the policy is accompanied by production of new housing, subsidies, or just-cause eviction rules—which explains why outcomes in New York, San Francisco, and various California localities differ and why some expansions helped keep vulnerable long-term residents housed while leaving newcomers unprotected [6] [9] [5].
5. Complementary policies determine whether rent control reduces or increases homelessness
Multiple sources show that homelessness tracks housing costs and vacancy dynamics: higher rents and constrained supply raise homelessness, so rent control without policies to increase supply, preserve affordable units, or provide rental assistance risks unintended consequences, whereas coupling tenant protections with housing production, vouchers, and targeted services is more likely to prevent housing loss [3] [10] [11].
6. Bottom line and limits of the evidence
The simplest, evidence-based conclusion is that rent control is not a universal cause of homelessness but can contribute to higher homelessness in some markets if implemented in ways that shrink supply or push costs into the uncontrolled sector; conversely, well-designed rent protections that target vulnerable renters and are paired with supply and subsidy measures can reduce displacement and homelessness—existing studies disagree on magnitude, and empirical limits (measurement of homelessness, variation across cities, and policy heterogeneity) mean there is no single definitive causal estimate that applies everywhere [1] [2] [4] [3].