I don&#x27;t doubt that demand exceeds supply. San Francisco also is not really a representative sample of US (or global) home ownership vs rental and so on.<p>All that aside, I don&#x27;t really see the line of argument that links my proposed idea to &quot;more restrictions&quot;. My initial thinking was something like (basically): current market forces (especially in SF) favor the consolidation of ownership in the hands of the few people who can afford the large capital investment required to build new housing.<p>IOW: home prices are ridiculously high at least in part because the future value of rent extraction makes these homes good long-term investments for people who don&#x27;t live there. See also: removing units from rental for AirBnB service in the long-term (sources differ on how many units in SF are lost to permanent AirBnB hotel status, but they seem to all agree that at least <i>some</i> are off the market for this reason).<p>So, what happens if this element of the market is removed? I know, I know: it&#x27;s central to capitalism, I&#x27;m becoming a communist, etc etc. What happens when the supply - demand relationship is between residents and other residents? Do home prices trend upwards? Does the current bloc of owners and rent-controlled residents stop acting to fight against further expansion?