Earlier quoted context omitted.
San Francisco has very strong rent control laws that limit rent increases to below the rate of inflation, that ensure well-behaved tenants generally can hold onto an apartment for their entire life if they want, and keep paying an ever-discounted rate, and they even apply when the tenant is wealthy. But when poor tenants voluntarily move out, they're usually replaced by someone willing to pay a lot more. Also, in any…
Why the opposition to the Ellis Act? If I own a home and want to sell it, I shouldn't be limited to selling it to someone who wants to be a landlord (a very small minority of people). And if I buy a home, I shouldn't be forced to rent it to someone. If you rent a home you do not own it and you should not have any claim to what happens to it beyond the end of your current lease.
Those who own and rent to others are not looked upon favorably by those who rent. It's the Scrooge principle: A man who provides a service to those who would otherwise have no service are despised by all.
The sad thing about the opposition to the Ellis Act is how much it hinders the renting populace. By not allowing the landlord to pass along costs to the user, the user ends up losing more because the landlord is less likely to sink more monies into a facility.
Edit: If you are going to downvote me, please take the time to provide a reasoned response, I am open to hearing opposing points of view.