His testimony isn't crazy, but my gut feeling is it isn't an accurate reflection of the literature either. Filed under the Roosevelt Institute being a succesful counterbalance to Cato and helping to politicize the field.
I'd also file this under the need for theoretical underpinnings rather than pure emperical studies. He argues that rent control doesn't impact the housing supply based on studies where property owners substitute away from rentals to owner-occupants but aggregate supply doesn't change.
But then argues that rent control as implemented isn't strict enough. Presumedly you can't generalize supply effects from partial price controls to full price controls.
Similarly, I think the idea that business owners only look 10 years out so rent control doesn't matter is interesting but suspect. Presumedly the future value of the asset in 10 years is part of the businesses balance sheet. And returns increase at or below inflation will play into that.