I support building new buildings - if we let them build new buildings, those buildings are exempt from rent control, too! Also, let's not forget that SF also h

I support building new buildings - if we let them build new buildings, those buildings are exempt from rent control, too! Also, let's not forget that SF also has a pretty large amount of subsidized housing stock in the form of BMR (below market rent) units and other things. I don't see a problem with having the rent control stock transitioned to some sort of means-testing. I'd love to see them building, building, building. The amount of fighting that went on to knock down a Walgreens in the mission that was right next to a BART stop though, leaves me wondering if that could ever happen. Zoning protects owners, but remember that a tenant in rent control has a right not unlike an ownership right; it's a perpetual lease at a fixed price. They can sub-lease it, for instance. It is all but impossible for them to be evicted. So rising property values and quality-of-life in their area benefits them (the tenants) greatly; so opposing construction keeps the value and exclusivity of their position high. The tenants are accruing a large economic surplus that would normally accrue to the owner. Anyway, I've heard of quite a few anecdotes that involve people making huge salaries and having incredibly cheap rent-controlled apartments, or even worse, sub-leases of one. Never mind the pied-a-terre accusations. I have not seen any meaningful statistics, though.