If you tally up all of the people who own their home in San Francisco and all of the people who live in rent-controlled apartments you get a majority of the voting population. It follows that either they don't have a stake in the housing crisis or that they stand to benefit from it. Either way they have no incentive to vote for solutions to the housing crisis. As long as the majority of voters in a democracy aren't negatively effected by an issue it's unlikely to get solved.

Abolishing rent control at the state level (as WA did in the 1980's) would go a long way toward lowering the cost of housing in the bay area. All of a sudden the majority of the population would be clamoring to approve as much new housing as possible and investors would be rubbing their hands in glee thinking of how much money they could make by undercutting the existing market while still turning a larger profit than they would have previously. Seattle faces all of the same issues that San Francisco does, earthquake-proofing expenses, massive influx of population, water on three sides of the city, disproportionate zoning allocation to single family homes, etc. But unlike San Francisco, Seattle has seen an incredible construction boom in high-density housing because it's actually legally possible and economically viable to build.

I'm not sure if disenfranchise is the right word to describe it, but rent control leads to the following, in SF at least:

- Not caring about getting new housing built, because the tenant is under rent control, and their housing hasn't really gotten more expensive, not their problem etc.

- Not wanting new housing to be built because new housing is not subject to rent control — They'd rather keep the old units.

- New renters subsidizing old renters because landlords can't charge market rates to old tenants, creating a divide between old tenants and new ones.

- Creates a sort of class divide between the haves and have-nots, well off newcomers paying exorbitant prices vs. those less well off trying not to be gentrified away from "their" neighborhood. This is also a reason many oppose new housing in lower income neighborhoods (Mission, for example).

Taken together it is easy to see that policies like rent control make it difficult to organize behind a common interest (More, and cheaper housing for everyone) the way homeowners do (Keeping property values high).

I am not suggesting this is the only reason housing prices are extreme, but I do believe that if renters were more closely aligned in such a tenant city like SF, they could easily overpower NIMBYsm to achieve their interests. 60% of SF renters are under rent control [1]

[1] http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2017‐007933CWP....

Rent control insulates current residents from paying market rates for housing. This reduces their incentive to fix the problem (expensive housing) because they have already have cheaper housing... as long as they don't need to change housing (often prompted by new job location/family growth etc). Rent control has the follow on effects then of decreasing mobility and increasing commute traffic.