  They do want to pay landlords, though below current (very high) rates.

In San Francisco, NIMBYs secretly support laws like this. This basically guarantees that many builders will do the math and conclude that it doesn't make sense to build housing in San Francisco.

New large condo buildings have to sell 30% of the units at below market rate. This causes many viable projects to never get built.

So laws like this are sold to renter voters as a way to lower housing costs, but NIMBYs secretly love it. Over time, renters pay more in rent because there is less supply due to builders not building. However, a lucky few renters who were here early will get below market rents.

Perfect examples of voters voting for a short term fix but pay more in long term. And voting for themselves while screwing future renters.

▲ vrganj 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The fix is for the city to be the builder, like it is in Vienna.

The City of Vienna is the largest landlord in Europe. It is also the only major European capital without a rent cost crisis.

	▲	fileeditview 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You would think that people could learn from examples. Sadly it rarely happens.
	▲	specproc an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Similarly UK cities built their own housing, up until Thatcher and Right to Buy. Costs spiralled out of control after that. Most urgent intervention required in the UK, IMO. We're choking to death on the cost of housing.