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).
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.
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’ve seen money, place of birth, sexual favours, lottery, length of tenure as options to ration. What do you think the best way is?