[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.