[itake]

Sf is kinda a mess. Sf’s rent control also means tenants can’t leave (locking up more housing, reducing supply, forcing everyone else to pay more), thus continue to discourage rent controlled tenants from moving since moving means even higher prices.

The property tax situation in SF is a mess.

SF also requires a lot of expensive regulations (earthquake proofing, renovation permits, rising California insurance costs, etc).

Also… the unfortunate reality is there is only so much space and the capital markets determine who gets to live where. If you’re not able to keep up in a city, then there are better places for you.

[craftkiller]

> Sf’s rent control also means tenants can’t leave

They have exactly as much freedom to leave as they would without rent control. They _choose_ to stay because rent control has made it advantageous to stay. The way you phrased it implies you're suggesting this is a bad thing for renters but that is strictly a positive. Without rent control they'd have zero affordable options, with rent control they have 1 affordable option. Woe to the inhabitants of rent controlled apartments with their golden handcuffs.

[itake]

Rent control drives up rent prices for everyone.

So yes, if you have rent control in a city, it would create an environment with zero affordable options.

[inigyou]

Obviously it does not drive up the rent price of the person who is paying less rent. That's the whole point. The residents of SF have voted to prevent you from taking their apartments, so if you don't want to bid very competitively for an already empty apartment, you'll just have to take an apartment somewhere else.

[majormajor]

> Sf’s rent control also means tenants can’t leave (locking up more housing, reducing supply, forcing everyone else to pay more), thus continue to discourage rent controlled tenants from moving since moving means even higher prices.

This is disingenuous. In the absence of rent control (or prop 13 for property owners) you famously get a situation where tenants ALSO can't afford to leave... but have to anyway.

Why should anyone be forced to leave just because someone richer wants to move in?

You don't have to support someone being unable to evict people who don't pay to believe that there should be limits on how much landlords (or the state, in the case of prop 13) should be able to force current residents to leave just to make a quick buck.

[itake]

> Why should anyone be forced to leave just because someone richer wants to move in?

This triggers my other frustration: empty nesters. They continue to live in great 3-4 bedroom homes that are amazing to raise a family in (near job centers, plenty of bedrooms, tight community, near good schools). This forces people like myself to spend 85+ minutes in a car (away from my family, friends etc) everyday while I drive past all these amazing empty homes.

Yes, if you’re not using the space efficiently, GTFO and let people have the space! Let dad have more time with his kids. Let the tech bro that created 10m jobs and have more time with his wife and kid. Let people burn less fossil fuels to get to work.

Rent-controlled/prop13 grandma needs to find another place to live for the next generation.

Someone living alone in a rent controlled unit paying below market rates is much “richer” than a family of 4 paying 5x more cramped into a 2 bedroom apartment.

[kelnos]

Many of those grandmas would love to move to a smaller house or apartment in their neighborhood, but paradoxically cannot afford to do so. Blame the system, not the individual who has to make rational decisions for themselves within it.

[inigyou]

Maybe you could offer a trade. Swap your home for theirs and pay them some rent for it.

[itake]

AFAIK, you're not allowed to sublease a rent-controlled unit.

If they own their home, many old people made their bag and aren't interested in being landlords in retirement.