Something I've Never Understood - Rent Control

I’ve not read much of the story or the debate on a recent New York legal decision that owners of a couple of NYC apartment buildings have to repay a couple of hundred million in rent because they got some tax credits.

The legal issue is uninteresting.

But, I’ve never understood that government can tell half of a contract that it has to “sell” to the other half at less than it would otherwise be able to get in an arm's length negotiation.

To you my more liberal readers, how about laws that limit what you can make as a union member (that entity that gives you even bargaining power), even though you work in a field that would pay more without the law?

Rent and house prices in my experience always follow the market, until government steps in (or corrupt banks and investment companies, etc. in the case of the mortgage mess and even then, once the bubble is burst, the prices return to the then current market). Otherwise, when the price is too high in an area, the price goes down because people don’t rent or buy. The converse is true. Government skews the result by imposing controls.

I’d never live in New York City, Los Angeles or Boston. Not because they aren’t wonderful places in many of their aspects. It’s because I’d never pay the cost of their great amenities. If other people will, more power to them and those they are paying. But, should their decision be subsidized by the landlords? Should their decision be inhibited because a law says they can’t earn what they should and thus can’t afford to live where they want to live?

If the answer to either question is yes, someone other than the person is paying – the landlord or the employer – they are subsidizing the artificial economy. Seems like a bad idea to me.