Statewide Analysis

Pooled TWFE event-study estimates comparing Oregon and California to eleven donor states with no statewide rent cap. Four federal data sources, 13 outcome variables, 116 robustness specifications.

Design Overview

Policy Events

Oregon SB 608 (effective 2019-02-28) — caps annual rent increases at CPI + 7 percentage points on most rental units over 15 years old. First statewide rent cap in U.S. history.

California AB 1482 (effective 2020-01-01) — caps increases at CPI + 5 pp on most units over 15 years old. Applies statewide to ~8 million rental units.

Washington HB 1217 (effective 2025-05-07) — 7% annual cap. Included for descriptive tracking only; almost no post-policy data exist.

Comparison Group

11 donor states with no statewide rent cap during the sample period: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, North Carolina, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia.

Sensitivity checks restrict to western-only donors (AZ, CO, ID, NV, UT) and run leave-one-donor-out (dropping AZ, CO, or FL in turn) to test whether results depend on any single state.

Research Questions

QQuestionDomainSourceCoverageStatus
Q1Did caps reduce occupied-rent growth?RentACS2015-19, 21-24Limited
Q2Did caps reduce renter cost burden?AffordabilityACS2015-19, 21-24Limited
Q3Did caps increase residential stability?MobilityACS2015-19, 21-24Limited
Q4Did caps reduce housing supply?SupplyBPS2010-2024Answered
Q5Did caps change housing prices?CapitalizationFHFA2010-2025Answered
Q6Did caps change labor-market outcomes?LaborQCEW2014-2024Limited
Q7Larger effects where burden was higher?HeterogeneityACS+ESCA vs. ORSuggestive
Q8Larger effects where supply was constrained?HeterogeneityBPS+ESCA vs. ORSuggestive
Q9Did impacts differ across outcome domains?Cross-domainAllVariesSummary
Q10Were CA and OR similar enough to pool?PoolabilityAllFullAnswered

Cross-Outcome Results

Post-Treatment Shift by Outcome

Each bar shows the average post-treatment event-study coefficient as a percentage of the treated pre-policy mean. Outcomes are grouped by data source and domain.

Supply (BPS)
Capitalization (FHFA)
ACS outcomes
Labor (QCEW)
DomainOutcomeWhat it measuresSourcePre-meanPost shift% of meanGrade
SupplyTotal permitsNew privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits (annual, state-level)BPS51,845-12,819-24.7%Answered
Supply5+ unit permitsPermits for buildings with 5 or more units (multifamily construction)BPS23,890-5,044-21.1%Answered
SupplyMultifamily shareFraction of total permits going to 5+ unit buildingsBPS0.459-0.041-8.9%Answered
CapitalizationFHFA HPIPurchase-only house price index (seasonally adjusted), measuring home sale price trendsFHFA261.4-18.7-7.1%Answered
Rent levelMedian gross rentMedian monthly rent paid by current occupants (not asking rents or new-lease prices)ACS$1,270-$9-0.7%Limited
AffordabilityRent burden 30%+Share of renter households paying 30% or more of income toward rentACS53.1%-0.5 pp-1.0%Limited
StabilitySame house 1yrShare of population living in the same house as one year ago (residential stability)ACS85.0%+0.3 pp+0.4%Limited
StabilityMoved last yearShare of population that moved within the past yearACS15.0%-0.3 pp-2.1%Limited
StabilityMoved diff stateShare that moved from a different state in the past year (interstate migration)ACS2.3%+0.7 pp+31.7%Limited
TenureRenter shareShare of occupied housing units that are renter-occupiedACS42.2%+0.4 pp+0.9%Limited
LaborQCEW weekly wageAverage weekly wage across all covered employers (total private + government)QCEW$1,115+$42+3.8%Exploratory
LaborQCEW employmentTotal covered employment level (workers covered by unemployment insurance)QCEW9,999K-235K-2.3%Exploratory

Evidence grading: Answered = full coverage, clean pre-trends, all checks run. Limited = informative but coverage gaps or pre-trend issues reduce confidence. Exploratory = short pre-period or contaminated placebo; directional only.

California vs. Oregon

Post-Treatment Effects by State

Average post-treatment coefficient as percent of each state’s own pre-policy mean, from state-specific event-time interactions. With only two treated states, these are descriptive contrasts.

OutcomeDomainCA pre-meanCA post (%)OR pre-meanOR post (%)
Total permitsSupply85,114-12.9%14,879-96.4%
5+ unit permitsSupply40,020-11.7%5,968-95.6%
Multifamily shareSupply0.503-6.7%0.410-12.3%
FHFA HPICapitalization215.8-20.1%312.1+1.0%
Median gross rentRent$1,453+0.6%$1,042-2.5%
Rent burden 30%+Affordability54.8%-2.0%51.0%+0.3%
QCEW employmentLabor16.8M-1.7%1.8M-8.7%
QCEW weekly wageLabor$1,248+6.3%$956+1.4%

California has higher rents, more renters, and lower per-renter permit rates. The FHFA signal is driven almost entirely by California (−20.1% vs. +1.0%). Oregon shows a massive proportional permit decline (−96%) but near-zero HPI movement. These reflect different baselines, not a powered test of moderating mechanisms.

Pre-Policy State Profiles

Permits per 1,000 Renter Households

New housing permits relative to the renter population, showing how supply-constrained each state was before policy adoption. Lower values indicate tighter supply relative to demand.

StateRoleBurden 30%+Renter shareMedian rentPermits/1KFHFA HPI
CaliforniaTreated55.2%45.8%$1,45318.0249.2
OregonTreated51.0%38.0%$1,04232.0370.3
ArizonaDonor48.0%36.4%39.6276.5
ColoradoDonor51.6%35.3%51.4390.8
FloridaDonor56.5%35.3%45.9265.1
GeorgiaDonor49.1%37.5%37.3209.9
IdahoDonor46.2%30.5%69.0274.4
North CarolinaDonor47.6%35.4%45.8212.8
NevadaDonor49.5%44.4%36.1217.1
TennesseeDonor47.5%34.4%40.6230.3
TexasDonor47.9%38.5%48.0256.3
UtahDonor44.5%30.2%78.4349.1
VirginiaDonor48.5%34.3%29.2235.0

Credibility Checks

Specifications Completed by Outcome

Number of distinct robustness specifications run for each outcome. FHFA and QCEW include quarterly timing checks; permit and ACS outcomes are annual only.

Placebo Timing

Treatment shifted two years early. If the placebo produces significant post effects, the original estimate is less credible.

Donor Sensitivity

Western-only donor pool (AZ, CO, ID, NV, UT) and leave-one-donor-out (AZ, CO, FL each dropped).

Single-State Models

CA-only and OR-only event studies test whether pooled results are driven by one state.

State Interactions

Separate CA and OR event-time coefficients reveal heterogeneous responses.

Quarterly Timing

FHFA and QCEW under preferred (OR: 2019Q2) and alternative (OR: 2019Q1) treatment dates.

Pre-Trend Tests

Lead coefficients for each outcome. Clean pre-trends mean treated and donor states were on parallel paths before policy.

Pre-trend summary: Permits and FHFA have the cleanest pre-trends. Median gross rent has strongly negative leads at event times −4 and −3 (pre-treatment divergence). QCEW employment has a borderline negative lead at −4. ACS outcomes are compressed by the narrow 2015–2019 pre-window.

Data Sources

Coverage Windows

Available data years by source. The ACS gap in 2020 is real: the Census Bureau did not release 1-year profiles that year due to pandemic-related data-collection disruptions.

SourceAgencyWhat it providesFrequencyCoverage
Building Permits Survey (BPS)Census BureauNew privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits, broken down by structure sizeAnnual2010–2024
House Price Index (HPI)FHFAPurchase-only, seasonally adjusted index of repeat-sale home pricesAnnual + Quarterly2010–2025
ACS 1-Year ProfilesCensus BureauMedian gross rent, rent burden, renter share, residential mobility (3 measures)Annual2015–19, 21–24
QCEW Area SlicesBLSTotal covered employment and average weekly wages for workers covered by unemployment insuranceAnnual + Quarterly2014–2024

Methods

Specification

Two-way fixed-effects (TWFE) event study at the state-year level. State fixed effects absorb permanent state differences. Year fixed effects absorb national trends. Event-time leads and lags identify the treatment path.

Treatment Timing

Oregon: annual 2019, quarterly 2019Q2 (preferred) / 2019Q1 (alt).
California: annual 2020, quarterly 2020Q1.
Washington: descriptive only (2025).

ACS 1-year profiles were not released for 2020. QCEW starts 2014. Only two treated states. ACS measures occupied rents, not asking rents. All estimates are state-level. Washington is descriptive only. This project does not claim to measure “rent control” as a general policy category.