I don't know about San Francisco, but New York landlords who don't own rent-controlled apartments actually make a huge amount of money out of it.
Demand for housing is extremely inelastic, which means that a 1% supply destruction will have a much greater than 1% (possibly 10-50%) effect on prices. The result of supply destruction is that the class of suppliers benefits, although individual suppliers (who experience the destruction) don't. Of course, landlords who own a lot of RC properties are losing on those units, regardless of the aggregate benefit to the class of landlords.
The legacy, 1947-era, rent control in New York covers less than 1% of apartments, but it's responsible for at least a 50% increase in what people have to pay for at-market housing. That's how price inelasticity works.
Demand for housing is extremely inelastic, which means that a 1% supply destruction will have a much greater than 1% (possibly 10-50%) effect on prices. The result of supply destruction is that the class of suppliers benefits, although individual suppliers (who experience the destruction) don't. Of course, landlords who own a lot of RC properties are losing on those units, regardless of the aggregate benefit to the class of landlords.
The legacy, 1947-era, rent control in New York covers less than 1% of apartments, but it's responsible for at least a 50% increase in what people have to pay for at-market housing. That's how price inelasticity works.