[davidtyleryork]

Posted this in the comments section there, but I would love to hear your feedback as well.

I think the primary issue is constrained supply. As klochner said, barely any new housing is added and SF has a fixed land mass. But this problem is made much much worse by rent control.

If you have an apartment in SF with Rent Control and prices are rising, you don't move. This means fewer apartments are on the market, which further increases the price, leading to a price inflation cycle.

Of course, ironically now that I live in the city I would never want rent control taken away. Pretty much everyone else I've talked to, even those who agree with my assessment on its negative aspects, also find it very convenient once it's in their favor. So it's removal will likely never pass in a public vote situation.

[muzz]

Fixed land mass is a canard. Infill development requires little land. One Rincon Hill has almost 600 units and is built on about the size of a plot that a single-family home would have been built on, in most parts of the country.

Rent control is becoming increasingly irrelevant as anything constructed after 1978 is exempt, which is most of SOMA.