Quoting Paul Krugman from 15 years ago:
"The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand."
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-...
I see you're from Brooklyn. Have familiarized yourself with the issues surrounding the anti-development sentiment and roadblocks to new development in San Francisco? There's a lot more to it than "[Some] voters don't want to increase the quantity of housing ... near them."
To speak directly to the Krugman quote: San Francisco's rent control is more correctly termed rent stabilization. Rent increases are slaved to the CPI for as long as a unit is occupied. When a unit is vacated, that unit's rent may be set to any rate the landlord desires. More importantly: unless special arrangements are negotiated, [0] rent stabilization does not apply to housing built or first occupied after mid-June 1979.
AIUI, at the time, existing landholders decided that they would make much more money by raising their rents to ludicrous levels than by increasing the density of the housing on their property. They could do this by taking advantage of high demand and limited supply. When most landholders won't allow a developer to build on their property because they make more money by restricting the supply of housing, Krugman's argument goes out the window.
Rent control and rent stabilization has no place in districts with healthy responses to increased demand for housing. It is a tool of last resort. San Francisco worked hard to balance the potential damage done by rent stabilization with the real damage done by astronomical rents. I would say that they largely succeeded. [1]
[0] As far as I know this has happened only once, with with Sangiacomo's Trinity Place on Market street. A special arrangement was reached to destroy existing rent-controlled units at the site, but have a 1:1 replacement in the new construction. All other units in the building are "market rate" units.
[1] But, -in retrospect- they erred too far in the landlord's favor. The "Vacated units reset to market rate" provision in the ordinance gives landlords ample incentive to harass and subtly force out long-term tenants, and -in times of radical rent inflation- behave as slumlords and neglect maintenance and upkeep. (Because, if they have a captive revenue source, why on earth would they spend more than the bare minimum that they can (legally or illegally) get away with to retain it?) [2]
[2] Naturally, if rent control was the situation in SF, there would need to be some flexibility in the law to encourage new development.
That said, if there was no rent control in SF, then slowly, over time, all low income folks would be forced to leave the city. That is likely an undesirable outcome for SF voters.
I feel that a good proxy for a world without rent stabilization is the condo market. Figure out how much the monthly payment for the low-end and the average condo is, and I suspect that that's where a city full of unstablized rental units would be.
You raise a good question. What would rent in SF look like without rent control?
Thinking through the process, I imagine something like:
1. Rent for everyone would have gone up over time
2. Renters would have been slowly forced out as rent increases exceeded their incomes
3. However, it's likely that there would have been a lot more units opening up over time. That likely would have slowed the increase in rent.
I'm certainly not saying that a "no rent control" situation would be ideal, but I'm wondering if it's just made the rent situation in SF much worse than it would have been otherwise.