All very interesting -- and one sided. Here's a perspective from someone who has lived in rentals all her life, many in San Francisco. Before rent control in San Francisco, landlords abruptly raised rents to whatever they thought they might be able to get. Once my rent went up $400 in one month. This usually caused financial crises for tenants who had to scrape together or borrow the money to move immediately. Many became homeless. Tenants did nothing to improve our apartments or even maintain them because as soon as we did anything to make the place more attractive or comfortable and the landlord got wind of it, he would raise the rent substantially, knowing he could now get more for the place. As a result San Francisco was filled with crumbling, unsafe, awful looking apartments. (Those same apartments are now attractive because tenants can improve them and remain there at the same rent. Every time I come home to San Francisco I visit many places I and my friends rented and it's the same with all of them, they are in much better condition than they were prior to rent control because they are now the permanent homes of the tenants who live there, and they take pride in them.) Does no one but me remember the 1970s? The same situation as San Francisco in the 1970s is now the case in Portland, Oregon where I live (because of my job, not the housing). Apartments are generally in very poor condition as everyone fears the rent raises that follow improvements made by the tenant at the tenant's expense. The "eviction without cause" law makes sure that tenants will have no protection from these rent raises. And is Portland a heaven of wonderful, unregulated available housing? Hell no! We have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the US. Most new construction of apartments is also terrible. 270 sq ft studio apartments, 400 sq ft one bedrooms, shoddy construction, nasty rooms without windows, places that most middle class homeowners wouldn't allow a dog to live in. At rents rapidly approaching those that are unregulated in San Francisco! Statistics on rents in Portland (and elsewhere) are deceptive when compared to San Francisco's. Yes, there is affordable housing here, but it's almost all in remote suburban areas without adequate bus or light rail service. According to the US government and AAA owning and operating a car costs about $8,000 a year more than using public transportation. In most San Francisco neighborhoods it is possible to live without a car. In Portland's comparably served neighborhoods the average rent for a 600 sq ft apartment in decent condition (if you can find one) is now $1400 a month, including the new "utilities fee" (covering water and garbage service only) that landlords tack on in order to advertise the rents as lower than they actually are. Look at the difference between the pay scales in S.F. and Portland and you'll see what this means. I agree that rent control doesn't work well for landlords. Most landlords want to buy a building, milk all the money they can out of it as it decays from neglect, and then flip it as soon as the real estate market rises. Rent control interferes with their ability to ruin cities to serve their greed. If San Franciscans, most of whom rent, believe the realtors on this issue, then The City is no longer the smart place I remember! Rent control makes it possible for tenants to treat their apartments as homes, to invest in them, care about them, and care about the neighborhoods.
