[1anh2kqowg]

I think rent control is not very relevant to this discussion of poverty. Most cities in the US do not have rent control. This includes high-rent cities like Boston and Seattle.

Getting rid of rent control in SF would decrease market rates, but market rates are so high it's hard to see how they could go down enough that anyone near what we define as "poverty" could afford to live there. I think current low-income residents would be evicted en-masse (because their rent just went from $1000 to $3000), while medium-income and more frugal high-income people would relocate from the suburbs to the city (because market rate went from $4000 to $3000). As a software developer I could afford a better house but you might not be able to get the world's best burrito in the Mission anymore.

Obviously there is an ideological split over whether that would be a good change or a bad one. The living expenses of current residents are currently subsidized at the expense of landlords. It's a microcosm of wealth redistribution in general and pretty much zero-sum.

However, increasing supply is not zero sum. It increases the total number of people that get a place to live. It's more attachment vs. progress than poor vs. rich. I think we have a chance to build a winning coallition on this issue.

Rent control does not prevent development, at least in SF, because it does not apply to new construction. If we can get enough construction going that market rates are decreasing, maybe then it will be time to figure out how to keep Mr. "I've lived in this apartment in the Pacific Heights since I graduated from law school and am richer than my landlord" (Esq.) from saving fat stacks of cash for the rest of his life, without screwing that family who runs a tacqueria in the Mission.

[wutbrodo]

> The living expenses of current residents are currently subsidized at the expense of landlords.

I don't know why this is such a common assertion. Rent control raises the average rent for vacant units, which means a lot of the burden is falling not on landlords, but on _tenants_ (those tenants who aren't lucky enough to have stayed in the same unit for a long time). Landlords had to buy into the building at some point, and the cost of the building is adjusted for the fact that it's rent control: this means that rent control at most (on average) contributes _volatility_ to landlord's balance sheets, not costs (though this does translate to some "frictional" costs).

[1anh2kqowg]

Rent control in San Francisco only applies to property that was built before rent control laws was passed (1979). So any building that was built at that time (a majority of the city's housing stock) has had an owner lose a lot of money from rent control, either by receiving less rent or by selling their property for less that it would otherwise have been worth. The fact that someone else may have purchased the encumbered property at a discounted price that takes the reduced rent into account doesn't change that.

[1anh2kqowg]

I don't know if I'm clear, here are some analogies:

Chemical plant contaminated nearby housing development, some homeowners sell at a discounted rate to investors who hope to profit after a successful cleanup.

Pension funds buy Argentine bonds in the 90's. When it becomes clear Argentina is unwilling to pay it's debts, some sell to a vulture fund who has a better chance of collecting.

In both cases, some of the current owners of distressed assets are not sympathetic. That doesn't change the fact that a major loss of housing/bond interest/rent is occurring.