Just for the heck of it: Yes, Yes, No. Though I&#x27;m paying market rate (but not in SF).<p>Neither rent control as usually implemented nor construction seems like much of a silver bullet, though.<p>I completely understand why cities are reluctant to change construction policies on short-term trends. Building a ton of new stock for a boom, and then running into a bust, could lead to massive vacancies that would ultimately impact the quality of the city for everyone left there after the people the boom attracted are gone.<p>It&#x27;s also obvious that current residents will prioritize themselves over future replacement residents. And this doesn&#x27;t seem too unreasonable to me. If you think their government policies are so terrible, you should take that into account in your calculations of what you&#x27;d be willing to pay to live there.<p>So I support rent control for existing tenants, so that long-term residents who never had a job that let them build enough capital to buy don&#x27;t get forced out just by the vagaries of the market. Affordable housing programs can be useful too to enable lower-income workers to still live locally, but in my experience this is more commonly abused in new-construction situations where much more attention is paid to the letter of the law than the spirit; rent control is a more practical alternative.