And it's illegal to put new construction under rent control, thus incentivizing everyone with a rent-controlled apartment to become a bloody NIMBY.

NIMBY is the state of nature. Biased rent-control disincentivizes YIMBY

75%?? source?

That sounds like too much.

Maybe this is what is being referenced: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apart...

Though, I don't think this is "rent control" in the NYC sense of the term where rents are kept way under market rate.

Rather, it seems to be a set of ordinances around what landlords can and can't do, largely pertaining to rent increases: http://sfrb.org/rent-ordinance

In NYC terms, I believe "rent control" in SF is more akin to "rent stabilization."

this source claims 72% is more accurate: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apart...

Wow this law is so ridiculous, it basically applies to most the stock.

I don't think most people enjoy this benefit of rent control, it wouldn't make sense to rent out properties. I wonder what is the effective rent control rate (that which has affected price significantly). Maybe a rental turnover rate would hint at a solution.

rent control is what's keeping san francisco, barely, san francisco. it isnt going away. its also whats keeping my landlord from doubling my rent, thank you very much.

People that don't have (effective) rent control do not feel the way you do.

Congratulations, you've got a new kind of arbitrarily allocated ownership.

Its still difficult to understand, even if one is under rent control, it is still beneficial to push for more housing units. Additionally, single family homes do not fall under rent control in Alameda County, where nearly half of the housing units are rentals.

Problem is that if there's more development, you may end up being forced out of your rent-controlled place to make way for a bigger building.

How is it beneficial? It removes the vast majority of the benefit at the very least