I've lived in the south bay (no rent control) since 2000, and have lived in four different rentals. Each time i've moved, i've lived in a nicer place with lower rent than the previous, and my rent has never gone up.
Landlords do not WANT to lower your rent, but when there is a larger supply of rentals available, the are forced to lower rent to stay competitive. Rent control decreases the supply of available rentals, causing prices on available rentals to be high. It's not a direct subsidy, but with rent control, long-term residents pay lower rent and new residents pay higher rent (meaning that most blue-collar workers cannot afford to move to the city unless they already live there).
San Francisco's rent control is a number, about 2%/year (60% of CPI increase), that rent can be increased. As a thought experiment, do you think that number should be increased or reduced? What if it were raised to 10%? What if it were set to -5%? Which one of these is best for the people? Which one of these is morally right?
no subject
Landlords do not WANT to lower your rent, but when there is a larger supply of rentals available, the are forced to lower rent to stay competitive. Rent control decreases the supply of available rentals, causing prices on available rentals to be high. It's not a direct subsidy, but with rent control, long-term residents pay lower rent and new residents pay higher rent (meaning that most blue-collar workers cannot afford to move to the city unless they already live there).
San Francisco's rent control is a number, about 2%/year (60% of CPI increase), that rent can be increased. As a thought experiment, do you think that number should be increased or reduced? What if it were raised to 10%? What if it were set to -5%? Which one of these is best for the people? Which one of these is morally right?
mmm cheese