Cool, thanks much for taking the time both explain your thinking and creating another analogy! Seriously, kudos! :)<p>&gt; My analogy also shows that even if the event is predictable, or as he would say, &quot;the rules of the game&quot;, it doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;s just in any ways.<p>I agree with your statement. However, in the specific case of being a landlord in a rent controlled district, I feel that -today- the rent controlled laws are entirely fair. In the late 1970s, there was <i>good</i> reason to complain about how you lost expected value in your &quot;investment&quot;. Today? No. As timr said:<p>&gt; If you buy a rent-controlled building today, you know that you&#x27;re buying a building with a defined revenue stream. It is not &quot;opportunity cost&quot;, except in the sense that you chose to buy the building in the first place.<p>I have no sympathy for landlords who purchase a currently occupied rent-controlled building with the expectation that they will be able to make money by <i>removing</i> the existing tenants. If the success of your business plan relies on very low probability events, or it relies on causing misery and human suffering, it&#x27;s a <i>bad</i> fucking plan. :)<p>To speak to the &quot;lost opportunity cost&quot; angle: If one purchases a rent-controlled apartment, the <i>correct</i> thing to do is to expect the value of that property to remain <i>exactly the same</i> for the next seventy years. Any opportunity to increase the rent in a unit <i>should</i> be seen as an unexpected windfall. It&#x27;s <i>completely</i> unreasonable to think otherwise: when one bought the property, one either knew what one was getting in to, or one is so unaware that one has <i>no</i> business running a business. :)