> I think it's an oversimplification and ignores the fact that a large number of renters in SF were displaced all along the way.
And the government's answer is always rent control, eviction moratorium, and etc, despite that many landlords are hardworking people who carefully managed their finances.
The real answer should be increasing supplies, yet SF's tourism has a strong lobby group...
Yes, it seems absurd that rental housing is an enormous for-profit industry. There should be a harsh cap on how many housing units individuals can own and rent.
Of course landlords and homeowners don't want to expand housing in their areas, it's watering down their investment.
No government is perfect, but there's a much greater incentive for governments to build and encourage housing than landlords.
Every major city in America has slum-lord landlords that own dozens of properties, fights all development that isn't their own, and barely maintains their stock so they can increase their profit margins.
And the government's answer is always rent control, eviction moratorium, and etc, despite that many landlords are hardworking people who carefully managed their finances.
The real answer should be increasing supplies, yet SF's tourism has a strong lobby group...