The editorial page board has identified the obvious: Providence faces a cost-of-living crisis that is harming working and middle-class families. They have aptly noted that the state places last in new housing development, and have commended the City Council’s push for rent stabilization as a way out of the crisis. Although the editorial page board and the City Council share good intentions, this policy will only exacerbate the city’s troubles.
The editorial is extraordinarily short-sighted. While our colleagues acknowledge that “long-term thinking is important in the analysis of any policy,” they argue that “we cannot let economic tunnel vision obscure the critical humanitarian problem at stake.” This dangerous argument could just as easily be made by politicians seeking to increase the national deficit or burn ever more cheap fossil fuels, instead of investing in renewables, to address momentary economic headwinds. It rejects our obligation to future generations in favor of pursuing short-term gains.
The negative long-term economic effects acknowledged by our colleagues would likely lead to an even more drastic “humanitarian crisis.” Their compassionate impulse to shield current residents from sudden displacement rather than protect future residents from worsened conditions fails to understand just how bad those future conditions could be. The empirical evidence is clear: Rent control as a policy is counterproductive. A 2024 comprehensive meta-analysis of studies on rent control policies across the world found that the policy reduces new housing construction, overall housing supply, housing quality and tenant mobility. These effects disproportionately harm newer residents, widen inequality and reduce the rental housing supply.
While the editorial roots its argument in a sympathy for financially struggling Providence residents, rent control would make our city less affordable. A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that rent control policies in San Francisco led to a 15% reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing, raising prices in the uncontrolled market — in our case, new developments. A 2022 working paper from the NBER reported that the policy reduced property values in St. Paul, Minnesota, by six to seven percent, or $1.6 billion, within one year. A similar effect in Providence, and its associated property tax reductions, would put pressure on our cash-strapped city to further raise taxes or cut services for residents. Additionally, the City Council’s consideration of the ordinance may even encourage landlords to preemptively raise rents now in anticipation of its potential passage.
Despite overwhelming evidence against the proposal, proponents of the ordinance, such as City Council President Rachel Miller, argue that a 4% cap on rent increases “accounts for the regular inflationary costs of a healthy housing market.” But our housing market is far from healthy. The statement reveals a deep misunderstanding about why housing prices are increasing in the first place — a combination of lagging development, due in part to burdensome zoning regulations, high inflation nationally and wealthier Boston residents searching for relatively cheaper housing in Providence.
Our colleagues believe that the ordinance’s 15-year exemption for new housing construction might soften the ordinance’s blow to future development. It’s not clear whether this is actually the case, as the literature has yet to be written. However, similar grace periods in other rent-controlled cities have not been successful thus far. In 2024, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, Maryland, passed rent control ordinances with exemptions for newer housing. Following the passage, the counties saw a 13% decrease in multifamily transaction volume in the first three quarters of 2024 from the same period in 2023.
The worst consequences of this ill-advised policy will be felt in the long term, when the city councilors who enact it will likely be out of office. Because of this, rent control is a way to win short-term political gains while eventually worsening the already concerning housing shortage in our city.
We empathize with the desire to act — the state of the rental market is truly austere — but the modest short-term gains from the policy will create compounded harm in the future. We commend Mayor Brett Smiley’s commitment to vetoing the ordinance and urge the City Council to reconsider this misguided proposal. Instead, they should return to the drawing board and pursue economically sound policies — such as expanding means-tested rental assistance vouchers for immediate relief, as well as zoning reform and tax breaks for commercial to residential conversions for longer-term development. Only then will Providence become the affordable city we deserve.
Tasawwar Rahman ’26 can be reached at tasawwar_rahman@brown.edu. Ethan Canfield ’28 can be reached at ethan_canfield@brown.edu. Isabella Gardiner ’28 can be reached at isabella_gardiner@brown.edu. Avery Kaak ’29 can be reached at avery_kaak@brown.edu. Beatriz Lindemann ’29 can be reached at beatriz_lindemann@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
Dissenting Opinions: When The Herald’s editorial page board disagrees, members have the opportunity to publish a dissent to explain why they voted against the editorial. Editorials — and dissents, if any — are written by members of The Herald’s editorial page board, which is separate from those of The Herald’s newsroom and the 136th Editorial Board, which leads the paper.
