SF has laws around how much you can raise rents on tenants of older buildings. New construction is not regulated. People debate this endlessly, but what I was referring to was the (nearly universal) practice of raising rents at the end of every lease period, regardless of your tenant history -- for example, a corporate landlord will use a month-to-month lease as an excuse to raise your rent many times a year, regardless of your history or market conditions. They&#x27;re betting that you <i>really</i> don&#x27;t want to move, and that you&#x27;ll suffer a series of regular rent increases, even if you could easily get a better deal elsewhere. This is shitty, evil behavior, but large landlords do it because they can make the bet profitably, in aggregate.<p>That said, it&#x27;s interesting that you asked, because I lived in Colorado for years and the corporatization (and corresponding market behavior) of apartment managers there was as bad as any place I&#x27;ve been. If you stayed in the same complex for a few leases and weren&#x27;t an aggressive negotiator, it was easy to end up paying more per month than someone who had moved in the week before. You had to move every year or two to keep your rent from skyrocketing.<p>It&#x27;s one of the tangible reasons I prefer thoughtful systems of rent regulations (like SF&#x27;s) -- it leads to more stable communities. When people have to move every year, nobody puts down roots or cares about their neighborhood.