Rent control can protect covered tenants while shrinking the rental supply.

San Francisco's 1994 expansion made covered tenants more likely to stay, but it also led affected landlords to convert or redevelop regulated rentals. Good policy must account for both incumbent security and housing availability.

What this does not mean: This does not mean tenant protection has no value. The strongest evidence distinguishes directly observed tenant and landlord responses from model-based estimates of citywide rents and welfare.

Figures from the papers

Inspect the published evidence directly

Study chart · redrawn

Figures 1a and 6a · Tenant and landlord responses

The paper separately traces covered tenants staying longer and renters leaving treated buildings.

REDRAWN FROM STUDY DATAFigures 1a and 6a · Tenant and landlord responses

Figures 1a and 6a · Tenant and landlord responses. Values reconstructed from quantities reported by the authors at Figures 1a and 6a and the authors’ headline estimates.
Outcome	1994 expansion effect
Covered tenants remaining	20
Rental supply in treated buildings	-15
Modeled citywide market rent	5.1

Evidence stack

Studies behind this conclusion

Diamond, McQuade & Qian, 2019Peer reviewed

The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality

Rent control increased stability for covered tenants, while affected landlords converted or redeveloped buildings and reduced the regulated rental supply.

Covered tenants were 10–20% more likely to remain; treated rental supply fell 15%

Keep in mind: The often-cited 5.1% citywide rent increase is a structural-model estimate, not the direct reduced-form rent coefficient, and the policy is specific to San Francisco.

Study details →

From evidence to policy

Reforms connected to this claim

All evidence claims Search the research library