[dualityoftapirs]

A key thing to note is that rent control in SF isn't quite what most people think of. The apartment itself is not locked to a specific price (which is how NYC rent control works, for example) but rather the lease between the landlord and master tenants can only increase so much per year.

For example you can have a rent controlled apartment renting for $500 a month, that tenant leaves, and the new tenants would sign for $3000 a month. There's no requirement the new master tenants would get the $500 a month. Whereas I believe in NYC's rent control the apartment itself is set at $500 a month, and anyone who moves in, that's what they pay.

[iancmceachern]

Not quite. Your conflating several things. Rent control is different from rent stabilization is yet different from rent increase laws. Often cities have all 3.

In SF the rent controlled properties, both for rent and for sale (yes you can buy super affordable apartments in SF if you don't exceed certain income) folks just have to make less than a certain amount a year. The income tiers are listed here, and are higher than I expect some would expect. https://sf.gov/reports/may-2022/income-and-rent-limits-inclu...

There is also a citywide rent increase cap of 3.6% currently (its calculated based off inflation and other factors) on any and all rental units, regardless of income or rent control status : https://sf.gov/information/learn-about-rent-increases#:~:tex....

[dualityoftapirs]

Correct, but the "more than 60%" is including all forms of rent control. My main point is someone can be paying $3500 a month for a one bedroom apartment and it be considered a rent controlled unit.

Edit - put another way, there's a sort of implication that if a unit is "rent controlled" then it is cheap, and this is not necessarily the case in the SF rental market.