Portland’s rent control policy is complex for all involved and fraught with disputes – there’s no doubt about that. The city is on the verge of issuing an $8,700 fine – the first of its kind – to a local landlord who said she did not intentionally violate the ordinance but rather failed to understand it.

This confusion could end if the city implemented policies that actually increased the availability and affordability of housing. This is possible through the lens of the city’s ongoing ReCode project, but the effort may be fruitless if the city doesn’t deregulate as much as it can while eliminating rent control.

Portland’s current rent control ordinance, though crafted to reduce costs, merely perpetuates the city’s housing affordability crisis and should be abandoned in favor of simpler, deregulatory alternatives.

Research shows rent control increases the long-term cost of renting because it reduces the total supply of housing. Per Portland city code, the only way a typical landlord can rent at market rate on a nonaccessory dwelling unit is if the property is owner-occupied, and only if they do not rent out more than three other units.

This incentivizes landlords to move into their properties, thereby reducing the supply of housing. The other method through which landlords can escape rent control is by redeveloping their buildings into units that can be bought, such as condominiums. Both of these choices, which Portland’s rent control policy incentivizes landlords to make, reduce the total supply of housing available in the city.

Researchers estimate that rent control in San Francisco reduced housing supply by 15% because of owner occupancy and property redevelopment. It is intuitive to think that rent control reduces rent, and in the short term, this may be true. But by inhibiting a landlord’s ability to keep up with inflation, rent control reduces long-term housing supply, ensuring rent costs remain high.

Portland’s rent control policy only allows landlords to raise rent at a rate below inflation. Basic economics tells us that this prevents landlords from breaking even. The only hope landlords have of recouping their investment is to jump through regulatory hoops in front of a rent board bureaucracy. There must be a better way.

Fortunately, there is. While the proposed ReCode changes are a good first step, Portland needs to expand those reforms to further reduce the height, setback, minimum lot size and property use restrictions in all residential zones, which prevent housing from being built for the Portlanders who desperately need it.

The housing crisis is complex but at its core is a simple problem of supply and demand. Maine is not building new housing units at the rate it must to meet existing demand.

The way city officials can fix this is simple: Get out of the way of development. Rezone more of Portland to allow developers to build the kinds of housing people need. Eliminate rent control and let landlords set the prices they need to recoup their investments without needing to jump through regulatory hoops. Let supply meet demand as it would without bureaucratic intervention.

Portland’s zoning codes are confusing and restrictive, and though well-intentioned, the effect of rent control undermines its ambitions. While ReCode Portland’s proposed changes are better than the status quo, they do not go far enough to loosen restrictions. If the city is serious about improving the housing crisis, it must adopt simpler, pro-development reforms.