This has little to do with rent control; It's all about development costs. New units get built with mortgage rates that are far above the standard rental rates. Buyers can't rent units significantly below their cost so they hit the market at the high rate. These units don't get rented, so they stay listed prominently.
Meanwhile, a tenant leaves an old building and the landlord starts looking at existing rental rates. What do you know, that one-bedroom I was renting for $1500 two years ago now goes for $3500. I guess I'll up the rate! It's not as nice as the new unit, but at least it's not stuck in BFE China Basin (people will pay a premium to be near food / park / Muni).
That's how rent rates got so high: development costs > listing rates > matching rates. Period.
This is absolutely incorrect. Pricing is based on what people will pay, not development costs. Developers have high loan costs, and can not afford to let units sit on the table simply because they'd be "losing money" when measured against a sunk cost. It is very common for developers to lose money by selling units under cost in a down market. While there may be some resistance to pricing under cost, developers are not idiots and understand that investment made is already made.
Further, any truth in your statement would argue against rent control. If owners could rent at discounted rates to fill their units, then raise rent to market, everyone would be better off. With rent control (in SF new units are not rent controlled) owners are incentivized to hold out for a higher initial rent.
Meanwhile, a tenant leaves an old building and the landlord starts looking at existing rental rates. What do you know, that one-bedroom I was renting for $1500 two years ago now goes for $3500. I guess I'll up the rate! It's not as nice as the new unit, but at least it's not stuck in BFE China Basin (people will pay a premium to be near food / park / Muni).
That's how rent rates got so high: development costs > listing rates > matching rates. Period.