> Suppose you move in to a place and pay the then-market rent of $1000 a month. Let's further suppose that it cost you $2400 to move, plus a shitload of time an

> Suppose you move in to a place and pay the then-market rent of $1000 a month. Let's further suppose that it cost you $2400 to move, plus a shitload of time and effort that you'd rather not repeat. If the next year the market price remains $1000/month, the landlord can still raise the rent on you because you'll be reluctant (and possibly unable) to pay moving costs again many cities do not have rent control. the city i live in is one such city. the scenario you're describing does not happen here. if an owner decides to raise rent above market, now that owner is faced with the possibility of not being able to rent out that space, because now they are renting above market price. even just 1 month of vacancy is already lost revenue that would often dwarf the potential gain of raising the rent. owners also have costs too. when someone moves out, they have to pay to have the apartment repainted, listed, and brokered. this is not the reason rent control exists. rent control exists because SF wants to keep prices low without building more housing, making life miserable for everyone. > A bigger problem is that it might reduce the supply of new apartments. But that's also not a problem in SF because the city continually refuses to allow new housing developments to be built.