Re: rent control, if we keep it and extend it to all the housing stock, it needs a few tweaks. For one, changing occupancy can't "reset" it to market rate. The current state of things just keeps people in the same place for many years past when they'd like to move, simply because they don't want to give up their low rent. It also severely disadvantages potential new residents who haven't moved here yet, as they're always faced with a market-rate rent rather than a lower rent-controlled one.
SF rent control currently allows landlords to raise rent by 5-10% per year (depending on how large the yearly cost-of-living increase is), and can also raise rent somewhat for capital improvements[0]. To offset the above change, maybe we could bump that a little bit... but honestly 10% a year seems like a lot already; if you look at the other side of the equation, most renters are probably not getting a 10% raise each year, and a lot probably aren't even getting 5%. Does a landlord's costs really increase by 5-10% a year? I'd be surprised if so.
We also need a vacancy tax. Landlords should not be allowed to keep units vacant when doing so makes more financial sense than leasing it.
SF rent control currently allows landlords to raise rent by 5-10% per year (depending on how large the yearly cost-of-living increase is), and can also raise rent somewhat for capital improvements[0]. To offset the above change, maybe we could bump that a little bit... but honestly 10% a year seems like a lot already; if you look at the other side of the equation, most renters are probably not getting a 10% raise each year, and a lot probably aren't even getting 5%. Does a landlord's costs really increase by 5-10% a year? I'd be surprised if so.
We also need a vacancy tax. Landlords should not be allowed to keep units vacant when doing so makes more financial sense than leasing it.
[0] Because I had to look it up myself: https://sftu.org/rent-control/