Apologist troll. Housing is expensive because finance and the Fed have flooded the market with liquidity that combined with favorable tax treatment is creating yet another bubble.

The solution to a finance instigated housing bubble where housing prices are detached from the local wage base is counter-cyclical rather than pro-cyclical policies.

The housing speculative bubble is what cratered the economy, so this troll expects that doing more of the same will elicit a different, "desirable" outcome.

not the absolute level of rents so much as the gap between market rents and subsidized rents.

And since the subsidy that a landlord provides to a tenant is proportional to the length of time that tenant has been in place, it's is usually older and perhaps poorer tenants who suffer the most from Ellis evictions.

Now, Ellis'ing a building comes with significant drawbacks, particularly that it cannot be re-rented at a market rent for five full years, and because it cannot be condo'ed under the present law. So no owner would willingly Ellis a building unless he felt he really had no choice.

So perhaps rent control can be changed, as per Tim's observation, to some formula that makes rents more consistent across the city rather than favoring longer-term tenants. While giving landlords a more reasonable rate-of-return so that the incentive to Ellis becomes less compelling?

Put another way, would the tenants with the lowest rents be willing to pya more so that other tenants can get a better deal AND to reduce their own risk of being Ellis'ed?

The economy is thrashing, yet to turn an ongoing profit, because the Fed has dropped free money on speculators using the central banking equivalent of helicopters.

For those who fear inflation so, they have no problem when that inflation drives up the commodity they happen to own.

As a homeowner with a mortgage and small 1 bed condo, I pay 1/2 my income to my mortgage ($2,489) and HOA dues ($456). It's a bit more than 1/2 my income. I then pay my bills, food, insurances, etc.

The fact is all I know are doing the same and can do so because we don't carry subsequent debt such as credit car or car loan debt.

All my friends in SF, make $100,000 - $145,000 a year. They all work in Law, Medical, BioTech, Admin Services, Business Systems, IT, you name it. I even have a friend who sells shoes at Nordstrums on commission only, and she makes $95,000 a year.

I always shake my head when I hear or read people hit on City works for making $100,000. Uh, it's the norm with all I know in the private sector, unless you choose to work at Starbucks, retail or waiting tables. You get out of these low end jobs by getting a degree, or, putting your talents to the task and work your way up the ladder.

I moved into SF in '88, lived in my car for 3 months while I went to law school. I landed a temp job with an Agency (ABA Personnel back then). They kept me working full time for 2 years; working in law firms, accounting, etc. Eventually, a law firm picked me up, starting pay was $98,000 (in 1988). I had no degree other than a few years in college and then my Paralegal Degree. So, it can be done.