Our reasons for opposing Santa Cruz’s Measure M are much the same as they were for opposing California’s Proposition 10, which would repeal many restrictions on local applications of rent control.

Namely, price controls, by government fiat or by a newly constituted rent control board, won’t do anything to increase the supply of affordable housing, but will actually make the situation worse.

Measure M contains a complicated set of rules and regulations, and the Sentinel has been covering arguments for and against it for months. This newspaper has also published a series that compares Measure M with regulations in other cities, including an examination of rent controls in the cities of Berkeley and Santa Monica.

The arguments from both sides have been heated, involving policies that can limit landlords from evicting tenants through “just causes”; potential litigation from property owners underwritten by the real estate industry; and the cost of establishing and maintaining an independent rent control board. And that’s just a partial list.

But the ultimate question voters should consider is: Do rent controls suppress the supply, present and future, of affordable housing?

We believe, with the vast majority of economists, they do.

Advocates for Measure M are attempting, admirably, to deal with rental costs that make it almost impossible for working and lower income people to afford to live here.

They hope, not without reason, that voters will repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act via Prop. 10, including so-called “vacancy controls” that were previously used to prevent property owners from charging market rate for apartments even after a tenant moves out. In strictly rent-controlled Berkeley and Santa Monica, for instance, rents have steadily gone up because Costa-Hawkins disallowed this rule.

But, conversely, if a property owner is prevented from raising rents to recapture costs without gaining permission from a rent-control board, it would hardly be surprising if many decide to sell and that buyers will be largely on-site owners.

The inescapable reality is that demand for housing far outstrips supply. That’s especially true in an area like Santa Cruz, which is attractive to renters (who take up 53 percent of the city’s occupied housing); homebuyers who plan to live in the property; investors and landlords for the same reasons many of you want to live here. Add the demand from Silicon Valley and a growing student population at UC Santa Cruz and then stir in the area’s longstanding reluctance to allow much growth, along with stringent environmental regulations, NIMBYism and geographical limitations, and Santa Cruz is unlikely to be anyone’s ideal spot for affordability. The solution is to build more housing. And that means city policies and initiatives need to change, which, in some cases, is beginning to happen:

Developer requirements for parking could be lessened. Requirements and permitting can be eased for Accessory Dwelling Units including easing conversion of garages into housing and removing owner-occupancy requirements for “granny units.”

More multi-unit apartment projects can be allowed, which often go higher than many neighborhoods would prefer.

Creative solutions to financing also need to be sought out. The countywide Measure H, a $140 million housing bond on the same ballot as Measure M, is an attempt to generate funds for development of more than 1,000 affordable homes, loans for first-time homebuyers and homeless programs. Statewide, Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 respectively ask voters to approve a $4 billion housing bond and to funnel $2 billion from an existing “millionaire tax” toward homelessness programs. The city of Denver, for instance, is looking at securing funding for more than 6,000 affordable housing units in part by increasing taxes on retail marijuana.

None of these proposals will quickly turn the tide on unaffordable housing including rentals. The anger and frustration of many residents over the cost of housing will not disappear.

But this is what happens when strict housing regulations suppress development and investment. Rent control will eventually exacerbate an already untenable situation. We recommend a No vote on Measure M along with a pledge by elected officials and administrators to work with urgency on finding ways to get more affordable housing built in Santa Cruz.