Why doesn't he move to seatac or tukwilla and take light rail into town? Plenty of cheap apartments south of Seattle.

@38

Actually you've just proven why we don't need rent control when someone making $150,000 a year (top 10% of the wealthiest in this country) gets to abuse it. If it it gives you a great break on rent, why not demand price controls on restaurant meals? Or those $8 loaves of locally made, organic artisan bread?

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

@38 You make $150k/year and you rent?

@40, you clearly have not lived in SF. Take the NIMBYism and anti development bent of seattle, jack it up by a couple of orders of magnitude, swap out methed out / crack smoking homeless assholes for just purely balls out crazy ones, throw in a shit ton of people who can write multi million dollar checks for shitty condos, and that's SF.

@43 rent control and other social engineering is what created Detroit. No thanks. Plus it's illegal in WA state so there's that whole thing.

But keep chasing windmills. Better Seattle loony left do that and actually be affective.

jail bush, likely your landlord didn't own that building since the 1960s. and with rent control, yessir, new capital to build new is going to go outside SF. your mentioning the net worth of the property owner brings to light that in your mind, a proper rent control would need income and wealth verification of BOTH the renter and the owner....iow a massive monstrously intrusive govt. enforcement system......and pray, what if your girlfriend or boyfriend moved in? and suddenly this household was making $300K not $150K?

you deserve rent control then? what? what kind of enforcement system do you propose that would have the gumming monitoring who you live with, what their income is, etc.?

without this it's just a random reassignment of windfall rent value .....in nyc when i lived under rent control very clearly half the people i met enjoying its fruits did not deserve it. they either made a ton of money, they'd keep 3 bedrooms in a 4 br apt. VACANT, they actually lived in scarsdale, they illegally sublet the place, or often the entire building was abandoned by the landlord (thjis more in bronx). you're suddenly decreeing this class of assets can't get the same 3 to 5% appreciation most historically get; this leads to underinvestment; shortage; more political pressure for rent control; in the end, the old timers poor OR RICH make out wonderfully and the newcomers rich OR POOR just can't find a place because try to get this --- few developers go build a new building of apts. under rent control, can you imagine why?

btw why don't you spend the $3K a month, you're suposed to spend a third your income on housing, you of all people could afford to buy, yet profiteer off rent control. nice windfall you got there, we under$tand your motive$ in de$iring to keep it.

conlin at best does nothing. conlin at worst has caused a great deal of damage. even if sawant can't pass a thing she will keep these important conversations going, which, at the very, she's already done as can be seen by how much both supporters and naysayers have to say about a very small campaign. most people don't even pay attention to who is running for city council. i sure as hell didn't until sawant came along. from watching her since she ran against frank chopp there are two things i've learned. she's tenacious and consistent. she'll keep at it even if the naysayers say its pointless. i'll choose a dozen sawants over one conlin. sawant at worst will do nothing but keep the dialogue going. sawant at best will actually make a positive difference.