In some markets, there’s plenty of supply - for rent - that no one can afford. Half my building is empty. Yet they charge “luxury” prices for a very much “unluxury” place. I’m one of a small handful of owners that bought before the “management company” came in. They had no choice but to accept us into their system. I’ve seen rent go from $700/1bdr to $2100/1bdr in 4 years.

> So to fix the problem isn't to regulate landlords (aka, attempting to legislate price controls), but to produce more supply.

It's both. Producing more supply works best when it isn't being sabotaged by landlords intentionally keeping units vacant.

>you mean _because of_ supply and demand, rather than in spite of?

GP means _in spite of_. It's the only way to explain the number of apartments kept vacant to artificially reduce supply.

See below for instance.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/14/rent-stabilized-apartment...

  The latest New York City Housing and Vacancy survey estimates that last year 26,310 rent-stabilized apartments were “vacant but unavailable for rent,” down from about 43,000 in the same survey two years ago.

In my experience there are too many people that don't want to understand that.