In regards to rent control I think it’s important to look at the long term picture.

Seriously, how many affordable homes do people actually want to live in in Oakland? Even during the craziest points of the bubble, the small areas near BART stations were the only that saw tennant increases. Oakland’s problem is there is no ‘there’ there. There is no community, no established commitment to the neighborhoods, because it’s a place of transience, simply a way point trying to get to where they’d prefer to be living. (Aside of course from the peidmonts and trestle glens and other affluent ghettos)

Rent Control makes cities livable. I don’t mean this for the one person’s rent, but in their long-term commitment to a neighborhood. A general feeling of confidence they will be there in 5 years, in 10 in 20 years. A landlord may want more rent $ over the short term, but their investment is entirely reliant on that neighborhood having 20+ years of desirability, such that even in the bad periods people still want to live there. It was the condos and liveworks that’s suffered the worst vacancy rates in SF in 2003, the traditional rental units fared best, because far fewer were deserted by people that could no long afford them.

Your point about developers not developing rental units is not valid. They’ll never build them as long as their are live-work loft, condos and other means to build property without having to contribute to local schools and neighborhood improvement. I see no new rental buildings in Oakland.

You mean…that SF is full of office buildings and expensive condos and Oakland has an abundance of affordable housing? Then you’re absolutely right. :P

Rent control doesn’t work, because developers will just build offices or condos that aren’t affected by it, instead of rental units. If you are FOR inexpensive housing in SF, you will want to abolish rent control so developers will actually build rental units. It’s not what your common sense would tell you…but it’s what your economics textbook will tell you.