[shittyanalogy]

Rent Control is about enabling community through housing stability. Places where the housing costs have skyrocketed out of the reach of anyone but investors are also the places with the lowest community participation and highest Landlord rights. If you want to run a city where only the rich have rights then don't have any rent control. But if you rent to people who aren't rich, and then when housing goes up you try to throw them out to make more money, they're going to want to get together, contact their politicians, and secure their housing stability. Just because you want to piggyback on the poor and lower middle class to float your investment until it starts making real money doesn't give you the right to complain about the poor and lower middle class for still being there. If you consider housing in one of the densest cities in the planet to be solely for investment purposes I think you have something wrong with your moral compass.

[taeric]

These sound like bold claims, honestly. I have never lived in a rent controlled area, but I have also never had the money to enter into the only rent controlled areas I know of. Such that it is easier for me to understand the possible negatives of rent control over the positives. Do you have good reading on why they are false? (Basically, your moral argument sounds like I could see the appeal, but mostly false. Whereas the other arguments lack any appeal to morality, but seem much more likely.)

[Kalium]

How do you propose addressing the problem of the high market rents in SF, then?