Um, hi. I have tone feedback on your comment, if you want it. I am of course some internet stranger to you, with the unimportance that carries; this is just a request, not an insult or a demand or anything like that.
I found your comment more unpleasant to read than the non-sarcastic form would have been. I think that sarcasm often obscures meaning in a way that makes conversation less productive, and I think that happened in this case. It seems you weren't attacking the principle I proposed; rather, you were questioning whether it applies to San Francisco (specifically: whether the probability is non-trivial). Without sarcasm, it would have been easier to state that directly. You could have made explicit that you think the 37-year history of no new rent control is better outside-view evidence that it won't happen than the inside-view evidence that the earlier commenter brought up: https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/aaron-peskin-proposes-e...
If that's what you meant, we'd be talking about that. As the article says, "Peskin, who was sworn in as a supervisor last week, says he will ask the City Attorney’s Office to study an idea he thinks will get around the state ban on extending rent control. He wants to explore the possibility of imposing controls on new developments". If there's an interesting conversation to be had about whether Peskin's proposal is impossible considering the history, we could be talking about that, but the sarcastic form of argument doesn't naturally lead to that.
So I request that if we interact again, please refrain from initiating sarcasm and other forms of hostility. (Again, this is just a request; you are of course free to say whatever you want.)