That's exactly why suburbs in Silicon Valley are stressing the large cities and the cities are suing each other to ensure they alleviate traffic congestion as they grow the residential units.
Those who live in the burbs and commute into the cities don't want city dwellers to be able to make the reverse commute to come to their neighborhoods. In the 1960s, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (a light rail system) was designed to be a loop between San Francisco, Oakland and the South Bay. The NIMBYs rejected plans to close the loop in the South Bay, so it became much less valuable at reducing street traffic as it otherwise could have.
As if there isn't enough money in San Francisco to build roads and trains! The city governments certainly don't have it, but it's there.
I'll admit that the assumptions I make about rent control assume that the policy is far from well crafted and probably assume that it gets worse over time because US policy makers tend to get worse at upkeeping existing systems the longer they last.
These assumptions probably shouldn't be attributed to a perfect rent control policy.
True, there are real supply issues in some very hot markets, but few markets are like San Francisco.
So--why do you say that the price cap is what exacerbates the supply/demand problems long term, when you clearly understand the issue is that there are loopholes being utilized to reclassify units to get the back to market price? Those loop holes aren't accidents--the NIMBY groups put them there intentionally. But they aren't just NIMBY--they are also private investors who do not even live there.
I'm all for building additional housing to meet demand in general. However, it does need to be done carefully. By that I mean, upgrading train stations, roads, grocery options, etc. in order to deal with the increase in population. You can't just add 15,000 people to a neighborhood and not add parking or public transit capacity.