Simplistic model predicting major benefits, while none are likely. Abolishing rent-control could never take effect immediately, but would be phased out slowly

Simplistic model predicting major benefits, while none are likely. Abolishing rent-control could never take effect immediately, but would be phased out slowly to protect current occupants. Hence, the number of apartments coming on the market would increase slowly, owners could rent this 'new' inventory out at "market rates" ($4, aka the max the market can bear right now and 'the norm') and the best we can hope for is a (temporary) drop or slowdown in rental rate increases. With a more realistic ratio of people looking for apartments (250 for 100? 500?) there may be no slowdown or drop at all. End result: neighborhoods pulled apart as long-term residents are forced to leave, rents not affected measurably, $4 considered 'normal'. PS I live in NYC, where local renters compete with people parking their money due to overly lax taxes on non-residents, making it worthwhile to own but not occupy. Many buildings are half empty as a result (many thousands of apartments). Rents meanwhile go through the roof. A good way to affect housing stock in NYC would be to make non-residential ownership not longer interesting. I suspect the same is valid in SF. The suggestion below of increasing housing stock by allowing bigger buildings and improving commute times seems to be a much better long-term solution.