Requiring a process in order to evict tennants is a good thing. If the process is unsatisfyable or extremely lengthy, I don't think it's a good thing anymore. There should be a way to get destructive and severely disruptive tenants out in a hurry. Ordinary breach of contract things (failure to pay rent, problematic behaviors that violate the lease but aren't an immediate issue, etc) should have something like a 3-7 notice period and then be referred to court and figured out without undue delay.
I'm ok with limiting the reason for the landlord ending a lease, especially where the tenant has stayed there for a long time.
IMHO rent control/rent stabilization can be useful when the cap isn't set too low, and there's reasonable ways to pass through less predictable costs. If the cap is too low, rent gets significantly behind the market rent which causes trouble for landlords but also leads to situations where renters end up stuck where they are; maybe better than being forced out but not if the property deteriorates. If the cap is too high, it doesn't provide meaningful stability or a planning horizon for tenants. If it's in the right place, it gives renters reasonable time to adjust to market changes. Again, IMHO, 3% is probably too low, 10% may be too high, somewhere in the middle is nice to have.
Tenant protections setting deposit limits and process for assessing against the deposit seem reasonable to me. Landlords are going to screw tenants out of deposits if they can, regardless of the market realities, because the relationship is over, the renter is busy with other stuff, and the landlord has the money.
A single asshole can destroy an entire building.
Here's a nearly-strawman-but-definitionally-valid example: a landlord may want to remove a tenant who's being unusually hard on the place and accelerating the wear-and-tear. Could be serious enough that paying the tenant to go away would be cheaper than the cost to remediate the damage accrued over the length of the contract.
[1] https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/hsg-06-01gapp5guid.pdf
At least as long as 'no X' is a reasonably moral thing to restrict. So no pets, no working on cars in the parking lot, no smoking, no loud noises/no more than N police noise complaints, etc. At least my moral code allows one to form a contract that restricts such thing and that when one party refuses to honor a (reasonable) contract, the other party should be able to require the breach be mended or the contract be ended, and that some breaches can't be mended.
Some things that might not be stated in a lease but would also be reasonable to evict for could include no interfering in the quiet enjoyment rights of neighbors, no storing of dangerous goods, no causing dangerous/unsafe situations.
Does programming cause property damage or impact other tenants?
I don't think it's a reasonable restriction, but unreasonableness doesn't make it immoral. At the same time, if you make an agreement not to program in a rental and then you program, shouldn't you need to stop or leave? I might have moral concerns about how one enforces a restriction against programming, it's probably intrusive
Now, if your question is no programmers and/or no overnight guests who are programmers and/or you can have six tenants in the unit, but no more than three who are unmaried programmers... Then my moral compass is pointing towards no. Restricting the practicing of a profession on premesis seems fine, descriminating against the practitioners is ick.
If the tenant does something criminal, sure, that's up to the police.
In other words: even in a plentiful housing market, there will always be someone who struggles to pay rent (including transiently), because a rational housing market can't offer $0 rents. Tenant protection laws exist to protect that person from a landlord who would otherwise be incentivized to throw them onto the street.
If you only have 1 rental property and your tenant doesn’t pay, that’s a 100% loss of revenue while your family personally bears the cost of supporting this other family.
Whereas corporate landlords can absorb these losses by raising rents on 100 doors to cover the families that refuse to pay
Having 3 empty rooms helps no one except corporate landlords that can navigate and scale (and collude…).
You seem to be assuming that if we, say, just made renting illegal, everyone would a) want to own a home, and b) have the finances necessary to do so. That's not the case.
If grandma bought the the house in 1990 and property values have risen faster than wages and inflation, where is the leverage?
If grandma is under insured, either due to the insurance company not updating coverages with inflation or no insurance bc she isn’t required to, where is the leverage?
There is a middle ground, just need to find that point.
it forced landlords to keep their properties on the market and insured full usage of the severely limited available housing stock
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/technology/realpage-doj-s...
I have a 5 bedroom house that I rent out 2 rooms, but not interested in accepting more people unless they are friends or have a very high income.
At my home’s peak, we had 6 adults living there, now its at 50% capacity.
In SF and Seattle during hiring booms, a lot of young workers move to the city with no social connections, so they start their new life in hacker houses to kickstart their friend group.
Yes, good! Then they will sell their bloody housing stock and people can BUY them instead
This idea that ubiquitous rental (which is normally at obscene prices any way) makes cities more accessible to live in is nonsense. Landlords are creating the problem that they state they are fixing
Which the local landowning population promptly block with NIMBY tactics. Have you wondered if that has any impact? Not everything is some progressive boogeyman.
I’ve known acquaintances who got de facto evicted without warning just because their landlord decided to make a few extra bucks. Were that to happen to me, I would not be able to rent in my current city at all due to the recent influx of wealthy tech workers. (Read: extremely high rents with ridiculous income requirements.) Fortunately, my city has robust tenant protections and rent control, so I don’t have to live my life in fear of ending up on the curb. Some people see that as a bad thing; I guess they think I should save up a few million dollars to buy a condo or abandon my community and move to the boonies.
This would be less of an issue with more housing stock, but that takes decades to build. As a city resident inconveniently living in the present, that does not help me much.
Obviously, I’d never vote for a politician who would make it easier for a landlord to evict me arbitrarily. And I’d eagerly vote for the same protections for any other renter.
Kicking out good tenants cost landlords money.
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.
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.
So yes, if you have rent control in a city, it would create an environment with zero affordable options.
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.
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.
If they own their home, many old people made their bag and aren't interested in being landlords in retirement.
Not sure why you're surprised: this sort of thing has been widespread for years in cities (like SF) where demand outstrips supply.
If you can't afford to live in your city, what distinguishes you from the people in the boonies? Why should they be relegated to the boonies while you successfully game the system?
That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?
> That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?
Protecting its constituents from the whims of out-of-town money seems like an excellent purpose for a local government. Especially if some of that money wants to move in so badly that it can be very profitably taxed!
Why shouldn't local government try to serve its constituents like that?
Two, there are many "free protections" that are taken for granted at our stage of civilizational development. Should fire departments be privatized? Police? I'd argue that housing security is even more important than those. We bear the costs together so that our lives are collectively better.
Three, your entire framing is kind of bananas. Rent control is neither insurance nor expensive, but a cap on landlord profits. If anything, it's unbounded profiteering of basic necessities that's actually "expensive."
But we don't. Everyone who works in the city is paying the costs, while the lucky few who moved in decades ago are the only ones who get the benefit. If everyone got to pay the same level of rent then I'd maybe support it, but there's nothing "collective" about the people who got here quicker protecting themselves while pulling the ladder up behind them.
> Three, your entire framing is kind of bananas. Rent control is neither insurance nor expensive, but a cap on landlord profits. If anything, it's unbounded profiteering of basic necessities that's actually "expensive."
It's got nothing to do with profit; if there are x homes and y>x people who want to live in them, either you give them to the x highest bidders, or you unfairly screw some people over. Rent control is one form of option B (there are others).
None of this seems egregious to me. Yes, existing residents are prioritized over new residents. This feels like an obvious tradeoff if you want to maintain community and QoL. The alternative is prioritizing the rich — landlords and wealthy renters alike. I do not want to live in a city where money has the final say.
> None of this seems egregious to me.
Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.
The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live.
Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.
(But again, I am 100% for building more housing using any incentives available. This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.)
Come off it, no-one's talking about kicking people out on the curb instantly. I'm all for processes and reasonable notice periods. But ultimately if you're not willing to pay what it costs to live where you do, yeah you should be pushed out for someone who will, rather than the rest of us subsidising you even as we're forced to cram into shared rooms miles away from our jobs.
> This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.
How can it be? How will residents know or care that their city doesn't have enough market-rate housing, that market-rate homes are too expensive, when they're not exposed to that market-rate price? Ever if they support building more housing in theory, they're absolutely going to object to it anywhere near them. It's not a coincidence that cities with rent control consistently build fuck all, that the few cities that have managed to actually build some homes over the past few years are in places like Texas.
Anyway, you can get mad at this policy all you want, but the bottom line is this: renters don't like getting priced out of their homes and far outnumber landowners. They will vote for rent control as the economy starts to squeeze them.
Maybe more effort should be put into thinking of ways to incentivize housing construction rather than getting fruitlessly angry at social policy.
(Also, as a rent-controlled renter, I'd love more housing to be built near me. I don't think I've ever met any renters who feel otherwise. Most of the actual NIMBYs seem to be owners, not renters. As for how would they know that more housing is needed? Um, by reading the news and talking to people? It's a constant topic of conversation in SF.)
A properly functioning housing market is a way to incentivise housing construction.
> Also, as a rent-controlled renter, I'd love more housing to be built near me. I don't think I've ever met any renters who feel otherwise. Most of the actual NIMBYs seem to be owners, not renters. As for how would they know that more housing is needed? Um, by reading the news and talking to people? It's a constant topic of conversation in SF.
Everyone talks a good game about supporting more homebuilding, yet somehow SF never builds any homes.
As for housing, we’re working on it: https://sfyimby.com/2026/06/formal-application-for-bernal-he...
Maybe stories of massive, immediate increase in housing supply in places that scrapped rent control will change their minds. Maybe appeals to fairness will work. It's certainly got no worse chance of working out than trying to build houses in San Francisco, which smart, motivated people have been trying very hard to do for decades to no avail.
I'm very sympathetic to this sort of framing, but I don't think that's happening here. Or if it is, then pulling up the ladder is a pretty reasonable, rational thing to do when you're protecting against other people climbing that ladder and throwing you back down to the ground.
I’ve seen money, place of birth, sexual favours, lottery, length of tenure as options to ration. What do you think the best way is?
(But even then, plenty of Dallas residents have been upset in the past decade by what happens to rental prices when a bunch of higher-income folks move to town!)
One wonders why the people who don't want to have to leave a city like San Fransisco just cause some other people have more money than them and want to raise their rents out of their reach are the ones who should move to Texas. Why shouldn't the would-be newcomers just be the ones go to all those cookie-cutter new developments?
If you jumped back in time 20 years ago and were able to ensure that YCombinator, OpenAI, Anthropic, Salesforce, and other high-paper-valuation companies, and they all had imported their from-out-of-town high-income-or-equity-leveraging employees to McKinney, Texas, not much materially would prevent those companies from still doing what they did. But people who already lived in SF or on the peninsula but didn't own much land there would have a materially better standard of living due to their costs not running away from their existing incomes. And the Texas burbs happily would've built a shit-ton of houses and apartments for the startup workers, because of the aforementioned giant quantities of near-empty land. Greenfield businesses for greenfield real-estate. Much better fit than force-transforming cities.
Because my money should be just as good as yours? Why should you get a huge discount just because of where you were lucky to be born? I'm not asking for a better deal than you, just fair competition between equals.
> And the Texas burbs happily would've built a shit-ton of houses and apartments for the startup workers, because of the aforementioned giant quantities of near-empty land.
For first 100, sure. Then they'd complain about the newcomers changing the character of the place and ban new buildings. The same thing happens everywhere, you can't route around it by starting your own new city because as soon as you've built any kind of community you have the same NIMBY problems as every other city.
You have more money than me, so you deserve to take my place? That’s pure entitlement and leads to cities comprised entirely of millionaires.
What mechanism do you propose instead for allocating scarce housing?
> What mechanism do you propose instead for allocating scarce housing?
The one that we’re in the middle of talking about? Rent control.