In Boston, an artificial scarcity of housing is the unfortunate result of laws that effectively limit new development. You either can't build new, can't build too high, or have to meet a neighborhood's aesthetic to get approval. The result is higher prices, more sprawl, and a generally depressing force on the kinds of great things that come from sufficient population density.
Same in SF and Oakland. In fact, most of the approved new housing units in Oakland are designated to go in a giant development area on the water that doesn't even break ground for another 2 years... And people wonder why rents are so high.
Yup. The level of new construction in areas outside the waterfront is essentially 0. Which is preposterous given the current state of rental affairs. I'd bet you could count on two or less hands the number of new low rise buildings built in Cambridge this year.
What's the current status of rent control in Boston and the surrounding suburbs?
Even if relaxed or gone, as I recall may have happened in some cities, it left a legacy, plus developers have to factor in the danger of it being reimposed.
I'm a relatively new transplant to the city (3 years) and didn't even realize there was a time when the city was rent controlled. My cursory sleuthing indicates it was voted out narrowly in 1994.
