Peskin's new rent control law is a cheaper SF policy

As two long-time tenants of rent-controlled apartments in San Francisco, we know how important the city's strong tenant protections are as a lifeline. They ensure that much of our current housing remains more affordable for renters, despite a shortage across the city.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin recently announced a plan to expand these rent control protections. Currently, all residential buildings in San Francisco with two or more units built before June 13, 1979 are subject to rent control. These rules apply to most rental apartments in San Francisco. Additionally, state law limits rent increases for any type of housing to 5% per year plus inflation.

If voters approve the state ballot measure Proposition 33 to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which limits local rent control ordinances, Peskin's plan would extend the city's rent control laws to all existing housing in San Francisco starting on Election Day.

That might sound tempting. But the reality is far more complicated.

Instead of taking the time to consider the measure's potential impact, Peskin waived the standard 30-day notice period for proposed legislation so that it could be heard before Election Day. Generally, board hearings on “major policy issues” are subject to a 30-day deferral period to allow committee staff and policymakers time to consult with experts, study the language of the legislation, and analyze the impact of the proposed policy.

As CEO, Peskin was able to unilaterally lift this postponement.

At Monday's Land Use Committee hearing, Peskin claimed that “numerous studies have found that rent control has no discernible impact on new development.” Unfortunately, every study we've read – and everything we've heard from the people who actually build houses – shows exactly the opposite. But the measure passed 2-1 and could be heard by the full board as early as next Tuesday.

In short, Peskin pushes a complicated and comprehensive proposal through the established process. In doing so, he showed he is willing to spend more time studying the impact of the shadows of a 10-unit townhouse project in his district than planning citywide policies that would impact the entire housing market.

His reasoning for this is almost certainly that this proposal is political theater and not a serious political solution. It's designed to appeal to Peskin's base as he runs for mayor, exploiting renters' legitimate fears and frustration with high housing costs.

Peskin's plan calls for rent control for every existing housing unit in San Francisco. Based on his legislative efforts to date, we expect his next step will be to apply rent control to all new housing projects going forward.

Policies like these have been studied extensively by think tanks like the Terner Center and found that while they sound good in theory, in practice they significantly impact housing supply.

Developers would be incentivized to build for-sale condos instead of rentals, or, more likely, they simply won't build in a city where they know they can't cover their costs or get a reasonable return on investment. Housing construction, which has already declined significantly due to high costs and inflation, will come to a standstill. This will drive up prices as demand for housing continues to significantly outstrip supply.

We've seen it before: measures that seem “tenant-friendly” at first glance can end up backfiring and lead to living space becoming more scarce and expensive for everyone.

This proposal is the same kind of NIMBYism that Peskin has long been known for, dressed up in progressive garb. It's simply a way to block new housing. Under his leadership, San Francisco would become even less affordable, especially for the working-class renters for whom it was supposedly a safe haven. Both newcomers and long-time residents will have difficulty finding housing, and the city will fall even further behind on its state-mandated Housing Element goals. San Francisco needs to build over 82,000 homes in the next eight years. How can we achieve this goal if we make construction financially impossible?

A more sensible solution would be to phase in rent control for new housing after 25 or 30 years — a proposal that both supervisors and state regulators have already endorsed in the city's approved Housing Element. This approach will ensure we continue to grow our inventory of rent-controlled housing while increasing San Francisco's housing supply to ensure future renters are protected while making it easier to build the housing we desperately need. Such a compromise balances our need for new housing with our commitment to protecting tenants.

San Francisco already has some of the strongest renter protections in the country. This is something to celebrate. But rent control only helps those of us who already have an apartment. We must do more to ensure that future San Franciscans can afford to live here.

We need more living space, not less. And we need policies that address the root causes of the housing crisis – inadequate supply, exclusionary zoning and NIMBY resistance to new development. Peskin's proposal does none of this. Instead, it doubles down on a strategy that makes no sense unless you want to score political points.

If San Francisco is to be a city that welcomes everyone, not just those lucky enough to already live here, we need bold policies that encourage housing production, not ones that stifle it. It's time for real solutions, not cheap political posturing.

Jane Natoli is the organizing director of YIMBY Action in San Francisco. Corey Smith is the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition.