[aetherson]

I genuinely don't understand all of the native bias in these discussions. Like, if Joe lives in town A, and Frank lives in town B, and both would like to live in town A, and Joe and Frank are otherwise utterly equivalent people, lots of people seem to regard it as totally natural that Joe should have primacy over Frank.

I don't. I don't really know why anyone would. Like, ideally in a perfect world both Joe and Frank would be able to live where they want, but given that land is a persistently scarce resource, what's the basis for privileging Joe over Frank? And what is the magnitude of the privilege that we should regard as a natural right? Surely not infinite.

[zem]

because there's a high cost to moving - you lose the connections and communities that you've built up over time. the basis of these laws is that frank having more money than joe should not give him the leverage to force joe to pay that cost.

[s73v3r]

Why should Frank have primacy over Joe? Joe was there first. Should it simply be because Frank has more money? That's a pretty terrible way to decide these things. I mean, at what point do we say that Frank deserves Joe's other things simply because he has more money?

Basically, you're just making a "Might makes right" argument, but substituting wealth for physical might.

[sokoloff]

Why should the owner of the building have to lease the unit to Joe at a lower cost than he could rent it to Frank? (Joe and Frank are otherwise equivalent as stipulated by GP.)

Do I have to sell my labor to my current employer cheaper than a prospective new employer? Do I have to sell my used car cheaper to someone who once rode in it than I could to another buyer? Why then should landlords be subject to those restrictions?

[eszed]

Because housing instability creates social harm. Tech salaries would (probably!) keep pace with the demand for non-rent controlled San Francisco housing, but teachers, cops, firefighters -- let alone retirees -- incomes won't likewise scale. Folks like that will be rapidly priced out of living anywhere for longer than the length of a minimal-term lease.

A stable community is a thing not much valued by (young and transient) tech workers, though I would argue that even they derive some benefit from living near folks who make less money than they do.

Rent control doesn't create utopia -- and this article describes some of its acknowledged problems -- but neither would abolishing it be free of consequence.

Like most things in life, it's a trade-off. Don't overlook one side of the exchange.