I wrote an editorial piece years ago on how section 8, federally subsidized housing drives the rental market rate. It was based on an article about putting more reforms on landlords who refused to rent to sec 8 housing recipients. My opine on the issue as a landlord was that if sec 8 wasn't driving the rate of rentals up there'd be more affordable housing for people then there wouldn't be a lack of affordable houses or a need to ride on landlords for not wanting to rent to sec 8 people. I know that runs counter but here's the other twist to that. Regardless, back at that time, of if one person was living in a rental they would pay rent on say a three bedroom for that one person, that one person then goes and brings in additional people to live there whom they split the rent with. It's against the rules but who all follows the rules. Another point was that victims of abuse residing in women's shelters rose to the top of the list, you had to be careful as a landlord because, and I am just being honest, it usually take several attempts at leaving an abuser before one finally has enough, so if a landlord doesn't want holes in the walls, doors kicked in, etc., you really had to scrutinize why a person ended up in a shelter. Then, like myself, having when my kids were growing up did I want to take a chance at getting someone who potentially neglected their kids and have my kids pick up on bad habits of kids who weren't supervised properly. The end result of that editorial piece, at least here, was that now if you are one person you can have one bedroom, sec 8 isn't paying the same rate which saves them money which opens an opportunity for others, if you have two kids of the same sex you can have a two bedroom, to get a three bedroom with two kids you have to have a medical reason why one child of the same sex has to have their own room. So there was some good that came out of that opine. It still doesn't solve the fact though that the government raises the rent every year, most landlords don't do that. Taxes and insurance rates generally don't raise to the call of having to adjust rent over paying a few bucks more a year, it usually takes an increase significant enough, like over a five year period before they increase the rent. The thing with investors though hopping on the sec 8 bandwagon is because it's guaranteed rental income from the government, so it's a guaranteed rate of return. Sec 8 also doesn't have as stringent housing requirements as local city regulations so investors don't see a lot of loss in that manner. That's why you see a number of slum government owned rental properties. With gentrification the idea is renewal, it's basically a taking back of the inner city dwelling that occurred after white flight, in order to achieve such they have to force out the poverty stricken people who have dwelled there for years, in order to do that they have to raise rates above what sec 8 is willing to pay to keep those same people from returning after they revitalize the property. In essence it's another one of those good intention things by the government gone bad, there really should be a limit percentage wise they can raise their rents every year instead of based on market value. The way it is now one raises rents so people can afford them while the other raises rents to keep them out....and it's costing everyone else in between a real hardship.