Media Center

As two long-time tenants of rent-controlled housing in San Francisco, we understand how vital a lifeline the city's robust tenant protections are. They keep much of our current housing more affordable to renters amid a citywide shortage.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin recently announced a plan to extend those rent control protections. Currently, all residential buildings in San Francisco with two or more units built before June 13, 1979 are subject to rent control. These rules apply to most San Francisco rental housing. Additionally, under state law, rent increases for any type of housing are capped at 5% a year, plus inflation.

If voters pass state ballot measure Proposition 33 to overturn the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which places limits on local rent control ordinances, Peskin's plan would extend the city's rent control laws to all existing housing in San Francisco as of Election Day.

That might certainly sound appealing. But the reality is far more complicated.

Rather than taking the time to weigh possible impacts of this measure, Peskin waived the standard 30-day notice for proposed laws so it can be heard before Election Day. Generally, hearings on "major policy issues" at the Board of Supervisors are subject to a 30-day deferral period to give committee staff and decision makers time to consult with experts, study the language of the legislation, and analyze the impact of the proposed policy.

Peskin, as board president, was able to unilaterally overrule this deferral.

At Monday's Land Use Committee hearing, Peskin claimed that "numerous studies have found that rent control has no discernible impact on new development." Unfortunately, every study we've read — and everything we've heard from the people who actually build homes — indicates exactly the opposite. Yet the measure passed 2-1 and could be heard as early as next Tuesday by the full board.

In short, Peskin is rushing a complicated and sweeping proposal through the established process. In doing so, he demonstrated that he is willing to spend more time studying the impacts of shadows from a 10-unit townhouse project in his district, than he is a citywide policy that would impact the entire housing market.

His rationale for doing so is almost certainly because this proposal is political theater, not a serious policy solution. It's designed to appeal to Peskin's base as he runs for mayor, playing on the rightful fears of renters and their frustration with high housing costs.

Peskin's plan would apply rent control to every single existing housing unit in San Francisco. Based on his previous legislative efforts, we expect his next step would be to apply rent control to all new housing projects going forward.

Policies like these have been studied extensively by think tanks like the Terner Center, which have found that while they might sound good in theory, in practice, they severely depress housing supply.

Developers would be incentivized to build for-sale condos instead of rental housing, or more likely, they simply won't build in a city where they know they can't cover their costs or make a reasonable return on investment. Housing construction — which has already significantly slowed due to high costs and inflation — will grind to a halt. This will push prices higher as the demand for housing continues to significantly outpace the supply. We've seen it before: policies that seem "pro-tenant" on the surface can end up backfiring and making housing scarcer and more expensive for everyone.

This proposal is the same kind of NIMBYism that Peskin has long been known for, dressed up in a progressive disguise. It's a way to block new housing, plain and simple. Under his leadership, San Francisco would become even less affordable, especially for the working-class tenants for whom it claims to be a safe haven. Newcomers and long-time residents alike will struggle to find housing, and the city will fall even further behind on its state-mandated Housing Element goals. San Francisco is required to build over 82,000 homes in the next eight years. How can we expect to meet that goal if we make it financially impossible to build?

A more reasonable solution would be to phase in rent control on new housing after 25 or 30 years — a proposal that supervisors and state regulators both already endorsed in the city's approved Housing Element. This approach ensures we'll continue to increase our stock of rent-controlled housing as we also increase San Francisco's housing supply, guaranteeing protections for future tenants while making it more feasible to build the housing we desperately need. This kind of compromise balances our need for new housing with our commitment to protecting renters.

San Francisco already has some of the strongest renter protections in the country. That's something to celebrate. But rent control helps only those of us who already have a place to live. We must do more to ensure that future San Franciscans can afford to live here, too.

We need more housing, not less. And we need policies that address the root causes of the housing crisis — insufficient supply, exclusionary zoning, and NIMBY opposition to new development. Peskin's proposal doesn't do any of that. Instead, it doubles down on a strategy that makes no sense unless you're looking to score political points.

If San Francisco is going to be a city that welcomes everyone, not just those lucky enough to already live here, we need bold policies that encourage housing production, not ones that stifle it. It's time for real solutions, not cheap political posturing.

Jane Natoli is the San Francisco Organizing Director for YIMBY Action. Corey Smith is the Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition.