&gt; If I had money to own or build, I certainly would be disincentivized to build if I knew those properties could become rent controlled.<p>You live in SF, so you <i>know</i> that new construction will not be covered under rent control laws. [0] Why would you say this?<p>&gt; But gov&#x27;t needs to encourage building, not stifle building, which seems they work very hard at.<p>Agreed.<p>If the city government removes the anti-development zoning laws in much of the city <i>and</i> works to placate the rabid anti-development leaders in both the &quot;DON&#x27;T SPOIL MY VIEW!&quot; and &quot;NEW CONSTRUCTION IS <i>ALWAYS</i> RENT CONTROLLED UNIT DESTRUCTION AND YOU SHALL NEVER DESTROY A SINGLE RENT CONTROLLED UNIT!&quot; camps, and there is <i>still</i> barely any new construction, then <i>perhaps</i> it will be time to see why a law that controls rent <i>only</i> in buildings constructed prior to 1970-mumble is stifling construction of new buildings in 2015.<p>[0] Except in special cases like the Trinity Towers project. In that case, Sangiacomo got permission to destroy a building full of rent controlled units if he replaced each of those units with a rent controlled one in the new building. This was a 1:1 replacement. No rent controlled units were lost, no additional rent controlled units were created, and Sangiacomo got a new building full of &quot;market rate&quot; units in the bargain.