Protecting All Renters is Pro-Housing Policy
Tenants response to Martin-Pinto’s Article
Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed by contributors to the Westside Observer are the author’s point of view. They do not reflect the position of WSO. As always, we welcome opposing commentary submissions.
• • • • • • • • • •December 2024 • • • • • • • • • •
In 1979, facing an unprecedented housing affordability and eviction crisis, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors enacted rent control and eviction protections for hundreds of thousands of renters across San Francisco.
San Francisco was not a radical outlier for passing rent control. From 1973-77 the federal government enacted rent restrictions in Alaska during the construction of an oil pipeline due to the surge of new workers to the region.These workers were experiencing extreme “rent gouging” by the landlords who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The Fed responded to the question: why should a landlord reap tremendous windfall profits from inflated prices due to a housing shortage?
In light of the responsibilities local governments have to provide essential infrastructure and services, it is imperative that they also regulate housing markets. Tenants comprise 64 percent of San Francisco’s population; it is not unreasonable to craft laws to protect them from extreme rent increases and unfair evictions. ”
Some property owners argue that rent control is a form of government overreach. However, their own property values rely on a large and beneficial system of government support, from infrastructure, transit, street beautification, and police security. The very notion of “owning” the deed to a parcel of land and the ability of excluding others from that property would be impossible without the US government decreeing it as a right.
In light of the responsibilities local governments have to provide essential infrastructure and services, it is imperative that they also regulate housing markets. Tenants comprise 64 percent of San Francisco’s population; it is not unreasonable to craft laws to protect them from extreme rent increases and unfair evictions. Homeowners benefit from their own “price controls” through long-term fixed-rate mortgages and Prop 13’s cap on property taxes.
Such policies are vital for maintaining community stability, ensuring that housing remains accessible and affordable for all residents. By actively regulating housing, local governments can thwart exploitative practices that lead to gentrification and displacement, thereby fostering a thriving community for everyone. Rent control offers a comparable level of housing stability to those unable to afford a down payment. State and federal courts have consistently ruled for the past hundred years that rent controls are valid regulations serving legitimate public policy goals. Under current laws, landlords are still guaranteed a “fair and adequate return” and can reset rents when a tenant moves out.
The opponents to expanding rent control, such as the YIMBYSs, present a false choice between housing stability and the viability of new housing construction. According to the Haas Institute, three bay area cities with rent control (San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland) have 27 percent of the region’s housing, but built 43 percent of the new multi-unit rental units since 2000. The bogeyman of rent control has not curbed production in these cities.
In 2016, the Urban Displacement Project (UC Berkeley and UCLA) studied the theory that just building more housing will eventually create more affordable rental units, and found that there is no evidence to support this claim. Rent control is an important policy protecting poor and working-class renters, and building more market rate housing will not help these families if it is unaffordable for people working minimum wage or other critical low wage jobs. Markets do not respond to poverty, and thus relying solely on free markets to provide affordable housing is misguided at best.
Jennifer Fieber is a member of the SF Tenants Union.
December 2024
