The foundation of any well-planned public policy cannot be based on the assumption that the actors affected by that regulation will act as one hopes. If the rental market is regulated knowing that this regulation will create uncertainty for property owners, there is a relatively clear expectation that the consequence will be that these owners decide to stop participating in the market and, therefore, a new problem will be created. Regulation must go hand in hand with horizontal planning. That is, if we know that the regulation will cause a shock to property owners, there must be compensation from somewhere; for example, from the state, which should provide that extra housing by building it. Otherwise, everything becomes unbalanced, and although it is possible to protect those who are already renting - which is good - it significantly hampers the ability of others to access housing. The problem we are seeing now is that of a legislative process hurried for electoral reasons, which should have started 8 years ago and should have developed in a staggered manner: regulating, building public housing, and creating incentives to avoid concentrating the population in a few cities. It does not matter what the model is, it must be coherent, and this one is not. There are great current examples, like that of Hong Kong, that have applied a planned and staggered public process. This is a botched job that, while it may at least provide some security to those who are already renting, will definitely not help make housing in the market more accessible. (translated)
