San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

Then you are clearly underestimating the effects of housing on the rest of society. Where you live (and how much you pay) is one of the biggest factors that determine how you live your life. So whatever your opinion on the topic, it is a "big deal".

"Renting has its perks, but this is part of the risk of renting"

No, having your rent quadrupled over night shouldn't be part of the risk profile. Again, whatever your opinion it is a shitty situation. It's not like you aren't taking a risk by buying.

"Where else does this occur?"

What you can put in an agreement is determined by contract law. It's not obscure at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contract_law

The city leaders will nail this poor owner like Hitler for pulling that.

"people moving into the city are subsidizing costs for existing tenants"

Actually, rent-controlled property owners are doing the subsidizing.

The majority of those who can afford post-1979 rental properties (post-1979 properties are not rent controlled (yet!)) avoid owning rent controlled properties like the plague.

Those who can afford to purchase the newer, post-1979 'free of rent control' properties are collecting market rents. Their tenants pay them those market rents. None of that money subsidizes the rent controlled tenants.

In order to say "payers of market rate rents subsidize rent controlled tenants' way-below-market rents" -- the subsidy would have to make it into the hands of the rent controlled landlord who is being financially injured, being unable to set prices for his business's services.

A landlord gets a subsidy from the government -- a cash payment -- if they rent to a Section 8 tenant paying a far-below-market rent.

Rent controlled landlords in San Francisco get no subsidy.

Not only do rent controlled landlords sustain financial injury, with the government micromanaging their personal property to benefit complete strangers -- the rent controlled landlord's property TANKS IN VALUE.

People with enough money to purchase a rental property will NOT purchase a government-controlled property and that lack of demand also financially injures the owner when they wish to sell.

Government theft of your personal assets is never fair. If the government said to you "we have a car shortage, you must let anyone who needs it borrow your vehicle and only pay you 20% of what a taxicab costs"....

... or if the government came to you and said "there's a shortage of software engineers in San Francisco, here -- you're going to only be allowed to charge $20 an hour, you know damn well you were gouging everyone at $100 an hour...."

Those are UNFAIR. It's YOUR CAR. You PAID FOR IT.

It's YOUR PROGRAMMING EXPERTISE. You worked for YEARS to attain it.

Any time the government is allowed to seize control of your assets in financially injurious ways -- CAN NEVER BE FAIR.

An owner of a 4-plex built in 1974 in San Francisco is not PG&E -- the electric company is a monopoly and it's huge and it's regulated.

The owner of the 4-plex is a "mom and pop" owner. They are GRIEVOUSLY, unFAIRly injured -- financially -- by government seizure of that personal asset.

Even more unfair -- if the SF government truly wanted affordable housing, they would say the following:

"The Costa-Hawkins Act allows us -- the government of San Francisco -- to impose rent control on ALL MARKET-RATE PROPERTIES that were built between 1979 and 1995 - state law, for now, prohibits us from going past 1995.

"Effective tomorrow, all market-rate rental properties from 1979 to 1995 that till now have not been regulated -- are rent-controlled."

After all -- if the citizens in SF are perfectly okay to have the government cause financial injury on mom-and-pop owners -- why stop at 1979, when Costa-Hawkins allows up to 1995.

Maybe that's coming soon....?