[Agustus]

There is rent control in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Oakland, CA. People get priced out of the market through an increase in demand and a lack of corresponding supply opportunities.

1. The lessee stays in a rent controlled location during a period of price increases, absolving themselves of the real-world price increase that is occurring to the landlord. So, to move from the house would mean the costs the landlord absorbed will be now absorbed by the lessee, meaning there is a large expense in moving. So, you either make the lodging you are in work, or else you move out. If you move out, lacking a corresponding wage increase, you will be priced out.

2. For San Francisco, there are height and zoning restrictions galore in the city. Supply to meet the demand is just not going to be allowed by the locals who push for "Keeping San Francisco like San Francisco." Since, demand increases, supply is static and those who would like to come in at $X wage are simply priced out of the market.

[eli]

DC technically has rent control, but there are a variety of loopholes and it does not apply in most cases.

[Agustus]

What are the loopholes? Is it like Section 8?

They fell in the statement because it was listed on the Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_Sta...

Thank you for the heads up.

[eli]

----

http://dhcd.dc.gov/service/rent-control

The most common exemptions from rent control are for rental units that are:

- Federally or District-subsidized

- Built after 1975

- Owned by a natural person (i.e., not a corporation) who owns no more than four rental units in the District

- Vacant when the Act took effect

-----

To be clear, DC has an extremely tenant friendly set of laws. But the rent control is basically just a legacy of an earlier era.