If renters, are so well-off, why would not they simply buy their own home, build up a cushion of equity, and modify it as they please? A rented dwelling is never quite your home, however much it may mean to you. It must be the nearest thing to a home you have, your principal residence, at least in San Francisco, for rent control to apply. Those stories of rent-controlled pied-a-terres, as far as If have seen, are usually just that—stories.

So is the statement, in most costs that landlords are not doing well economically. If they are not, why do they usually live in such wealthy communities? In San Francisco, the yearly allowable increases, are usually enough for basic property maintenance. If not, the landlord can make a case to the rent board for a large enough increase to make a profit (in addition to large profit he will most likely realize when he sells).. If the landlord is suffering from a disproportionate rise in utility costs, he pass part of the costs onto the renter.

For a long time real estate has been sold as a way to make a lot of money fast, no matter how, and whether true or not. I hope in light of the recent events in China the real estate industry takes a hard cool look at the situation and reconsiders their actions