[Gh0stRAT]

Correct. The city council is elected by residents of the city, and land owners have a strong financial incentive to elect representatives who will limit housing. (The shortage drives-up their property values)

You might think that renters living in the city would eventually outweigh the landowners and elect council members in favor of new housing, but instead SF passed a rent control measure which prevents the current renters from feeling the sting of the housing shortage so they aren't strongly incentivized to vote for more housing either.

[throwaway34241]

I'd also add that people who have long commutes aren't represented in the city they work in, although they have a voice at the state level.

[snidane]

It's funny to see the incentives at play. The rent control mechanisms are a hidden redistribution channel from money collected by income taxes straight to pockets of landlords.

Ie. gov gives rent subsidies of $100 to poor. Landlords react by rising rent prices by $100 because od this new 'disposable income'. The poor don't feel any difference, only the working population which gets squeezed.

The money flows from workers and businesses through the poor straight to rentiers.

[overdrivetg]

Assuming you aren't trying to intentionally throw shade on CA rent control:

Rent SUBSIDIES are a hidden redistribution as you discuss.

Rent CONTROL forces recent transplants to subsidize longtime residents

Ie. gov prevents raising rents to market levels for longtime tenants. They are less likely to move, driving up demand for the remaining housing, which is the only stock available for newer residents.

This then costs newcomers more, while longtime residents avoid paying the market rate on their housing - effectively subsidizing the in-place tenants.