Many are forced to move to remote locales in search of housing and then make longer commutes into the inner city to work. Rent controls encourage the deterioration of existing housing units because controlled rents rarely cover all of the costs of prudent property management, especially reserves for major repairs such as new roofing, re-painting and replacing aging appliances. In order to eke out a meager return on investment, a building owner will defer maintenance and improvements. In rent-controlled cities, real estate lenders either refuse to make mortgages or charge higher interest rates because they view the ability of a property to generate rents, as the underlying security for repayment of a loan, has been impaired. This process reduces continuity in ownership and increased instability for both owners and renters.
Tenant mobility is reduced in rent controlled jurisdictions.
Tenants in rent controlled units tend to stay in them even as their personal incomes grow over the years. By reducing the housing supply, rent controls increase the demand for publicly subsidized housing units. Most rent-controlled cities have long waiting lists for public housing units. Rent controls impose high administrative costs on local jurisdictions. While increasing demand for public housing units, rents controls actually reduce property tax collections due to depressed assessed evaluations reflecting the constrained income-generating potential of rental units.