Is there any evidence to suggest that rent prices are actually "strong incentives" to not move? I think this isn't true.
I think people are much more motivated by their social circles, their job prospects, upward social mobility by working hard, or starting a business, etc. There are so many factors that go into choosing where to live that I find it difficult to believe that simple rent control like this would "strongly incentivize" people at large to not move. Especially in California.
Anecdotally, I have voluntarily left 5+ rent-controlled apartments without even a thought to them being rent controlled and my next place being unknown. It simply has not mattered, because the amount saved by rent is often far less important than the other aspects of life.
Also anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in SF living in a tent controlled apartment whose name is actually on the lease, they’re all illegally subletting from the actual named tenant to keep the rate locked in.
Not everyone who is renting has tight money situation. Your complement states that everyone who is renting will have a tight money situation and then follow the 'strong incentives' that you have prescribed to them without knowing who they are.
You don't know what incentivizes those people. It sure as heck isn't primarily saving on rent, especially in SF.
> Also anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in SF living in a tent controlled apartment whose name is actually on the lease, they’re all illegally subletting from the actual named tenant to keep the rate locked in.
Well that seems like an entirely separate issue. Go after the people doing illegal things that are hurting your rental market. Stop that activity from happening if it's illegal, don't use some existent, illegal activity to then set into stone why passing new laws is bad. That doesn't make any sense.
