Sample Our Newsletter

There's an old joke that goes like this: "Would you like your pizza cut into six slices or eight?"
"Oh, six, please. I don't think I could eat eight." What makes this joke so funny is the mistaken belief that cutting a pizza into more slices somehow changes the amount of pizza available.

And that brings us to 47 years of rent control in San Francisco.

Not content with the city's already extensive rent control regulations, activists continue to demand more restrictions, more protections, and more legislation from City Hall. But cutting the same pizza into more slices doesn't make it any bigger. And piling more regulations onto rent control doesn't create a single additional apartment.

San Francisco's housing shortage isn't going to be solved by passing more laws governing the housing we already have.

The politics of eviction
The largest slice of the Mayor's Rent Emergency pie is devoted to preventing a purported surge in evictions, an opportunity not lost on two local news outlets who are having a field day exploiting the emotional impact of stories and images of renters facing eviction. What is the primary goal of these stories? They quickly change from informing readers about the issues at hand to manipulating their emotions for higher ratings, clicks, and engagement. No one wants to see someone lose their home. But there's another side to these stories that rarely gets told by the news media.

Small property owners have hardships, tragedies, and financial struggles of their own. For senior rental property owners living on Social Security or modest retirement savings, rental property is often their only significant asset, providing them with critical financial security. For such owners, the ability to collect market rate rent could mean affording mounting medical bills, long-term care, or simply maintaining a decent standard of living in retirement.

What about homeownership?
Homeownership is by far the most effective protection against eviction. Yet for decades, San Francisco's progressive supervisors have resisted condo conversions and placed obstacles in the way of tenancy-in-common (TIC) ownership, even when these arrangements could allow renters to stay in place or offer an opportunity to purchase their own home. The reason for this seeming contradiction—as cynical as it may sound— lies in this simple calculation: more renters (relative to homeowners) means greater political power for tenant rights advocates at the expense of housing providers.

While not all renters can afford to buy their own home, city housing policy should make it easier for those who can. But instead of creating pathways to homeownership, City Hall continues to over-regulate rental housing and restrict ownership opportunities.

The bigger picture
San Francisco can't regulate its way out of the housing shortage. More restrictions and proscriptions won't produce more apartments, and continually shifting financial burdens onto small property owners won't make housing less expensive to provide.

We need policies that encourage new housing, preserve existing rental properties, and create more opportunities for homeownership.

City Hall needs to understand that behind every rental property there may be a small owner with personal and financial struggles every bit as real as those of the renter. Otherwise, we're just cutting the same pizza into smaller and smaller slices and pretending there's more to go around.