Great!
That's a really clear directive: no "anti-development zoning."

Eh, natan, do you have any evidence that opposition to new development is correlated with rent control. Seems to me that you'd be hard-pressed to find an affluent neighborhood anywhere in the country where new construction of affordable housing wouldn;t face opposition, rent or control or not (usually not).

And even if we're going to argue the question on the abstract level you posed it, keep in mind that the effect on landlords'/developers' incentives is the opposite as on tenants'.

I agree with you that the housing problem is a problem requires additional construction, and that many progressives end up on the wrong side in the name of opposing development or gentrification, but I think you've given into your occasional bad habit here of creating a conflict where none really exists.

Sorry for all the typos. You know what I meant...

I have to retreat to anecdote and the basic incentive structure I outlined-- I just have met too many rent-control New Yorkers who oppose development in their neighborhoods and it's clear that the lack of fear of their own rents rising due to scarcity of housing assists the attitude.

In most communities, the constituency for affordable housing is both those without housing and those who feel pressured because of rising rents. New York removes those under rent control from the constituency for affordable housing.

As I said, I'm for rent control-- I just think there are real political costs to it when unmoored from a broader coalition for affordable housing. Much like environmental development controls may be worthwhile in general, but are harnessed at times to NIMBYist campaigns.

Nathan.
You must not be a property owner to argue so vigorously against zoning. :)

Why does NY need to go higher? Cramming more people into the same area will reduce the quality of life for everyone with traffic problems, parking, etc. It would be much more sensible to invest in updating a mass transportation system that was built in the 1920s. Also, routing traffic around Manhattan would allow the other parts of the city to grow without further concentrating it all downtown. For instance, a long planned tunnel from Brooklyn to New Jersey would allow for people to get to NJ (and South and West of there) without going through Manhattan.

Followup:

I've never been a big advocate of "free markets" but Paul Krugman, who is usually pretty sensible, seems to feel that rent control is a bad thing. I'd be very interested in knowing if there are any good critiques of his position.

If the Federal government still funded low-income housing -- as they did before the Regan administration -- then the housing stock would be larger, and more of it available to lower-income people.

Rent control may stop new buildings, if people shout "not in my backyard" -- but at least it protects a small segment of lower-than-market-cost housing.

rent control stinks. example. My father and my uncle own a small apartment building (six units) atop their store in brooklyn, ny. Some of his tenants are people who have lived there before they bought the place in the 70's. and pay.... $200 a month in rent for a 2 bedroom apt! He loses money on the property. another tenant put a washer and dryer in (not allowed in the lease) and btw, this tenant was/is on welfare. the washer broke leaked through the floor to another unit and caused massive damage. The welfare tenant (who can afford a washer and dryer?????) called her social worker and sued in the NY kangaroo courts. My dad had to provide the families with alternate housing until the damage (that she caused!) was fixed. Where'd the money come from? not from the tenants, what would $200 dollars pay for? (and that includes utlities!). I know they are not alone. btw, if they drop t heir garbage out the windows of their apartments and leave it on the street, guess who gets fined! yup, the building owner! There's no government giving grants to owners of rent controlled properties. and YOU CAN'T kick them out either.