I&#x27;m not trying to be confrontational. Please keep that in mind.<p>I see you&#x27;re from Brooklyn. Have familiarized yourself with the issues surrounding the anti-development sentiment and roadblocks to new development in San Francisco? There&#x27;s a <i>lot</i> more to it than &quot;[Some] voters don&#x27;t want to increase the quantity of housing ... near them.&quot;<p>To speak directly to the Krugman quote: San Francisco&#x27;s rent control is more correctly termed rent stabilization. Rent increases are slaved to the CPI for as long as a unit is occupied. When a unit is vacated, that unit&#x27;s rent may be set to <i>any</i> rate the landlord desires. More importantly: unless special arrangements are negotiated, [0] rent stabilization does <i>not</i> apply to housing built or first occupied <i>after</i> mid-June 1979.<p>AIUI, at the time, existing landholders decided that they would make <i>much</i> more money by raising their rents to ludicrous levels than by increasing the density of the housing on their property. They could do this by taking advantage of high demand and limited supply. When most landholders <i>won&#x27;t</i> allow a developer to build on their property because they make more money by restricting the supply of housing, Krugman&#x27;s argument goes out the window.<p>Rent control and rent stabilization has <i>no</i> place in districts with healthy responses to increased demand for housing. It is a tool of <i>last</i> resort. San Francisco worked <i>hard</i> to balance the potential damage done by rent stabilization with the <i>real</i> damage done by astronomical rents. I would say that they <i>largely</i> succeeded. [1]<p>[0] As far as I know this has happened only once, with with Sangiacomo&#x27;s Trinity Place on Market street. A special arrangement was reached to destroy existing rent-controlled units at the site, but have a 1:1 replacement in the new construction. <i>All</i> other units in the building are &quot;market rate&quot; units.<p>[1] But, -in retrospect- they erred <i>too</i> far in the landlord&#x27;s favor. The &quot;Vacated units reset to market rate&quot; provision in the ordinance gives landlords <i>ample</i> incentive to harass and subtly force out long-term tenants, and -in times of radical rent inflation- behave as slumlords and neglect maintenance and upkeep. (Because, if they have a captive revenue source, why on <i>earth</i> would they spend more than the bare minimum that they can (legally or illegally) get away with to retain it?) [2]<p>[2] Naturally, if rent <i>control</i> was the situation in SF, there would need to be some flexibility in the law to encourage new development.