You're right. The SF Rent Board does add some rules to try to ensure that a landlord can't evict a tenant simply because he's insufficiently profitable. But, from my POV, those are obligations that a landlord has to the local government.
"if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board."
Do you have a citation for this? The only possibly relevant section that three minutes of searching turned up was 37.3(c) "Initial Rent Limit for Subtenants".
"[The] Rent Board ... declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable."
Law at all levels is more like quicksand than bedrock. At least the Rent Board has a consistent and public agenda. Do the Rent Board's actions make more sense to you if you view them as a Renters' advocacy group?
"If you're a landlord, you probably don't want to ... [end] up with a tenant that ... pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else."
Is this the meat of the "legal risk" that you were talking about earlier? If so, you're not talking about legal risk; you're talking about limiting earning potential.
For something like forty years it's been the position of the SF Rent Board that the renters of San Francisco should be able to find, secure, and retain affordable housing whose rental rates more-or-less track the -actual- increases of costs to the landlords who rent out the space. If you do even the smallest bit of research before you decide to become a landlord, you'll discover that the city will make it hard for you to throw people out of their homes simply because they aren't making enough money for you. What's more, you'll discover that things have been this way for decades.
I suppose "political risk" would be a better term than "legal risk" per se. Subtle differences in the lease and established law increase the risk that the landlord has an unfavorable outcome (possibly including earning potential loss). As a consequence, they are unwilling to consider any changes to the lease, even a minor one, not simply because they may be screwed, but also because there are hundreds of other prospective tenants who would jump at the apartment who won't present them with any such risk.
"if there are multiple tenants in the apartment and their rooms are the same, they may not split the rent unequally. it must be split proportionally. so decreeth the rent board."
Do you have a citation for this? The only possibly relevant section that three minutes of searching turned up was 37.3(c) "Initial Rent Limit for Subtenants".
"[The] Rent Board ... declares random things legal and enforceable or not legal and not enforceable."
Law at all levels is more like quicksand than bedrock. At least the Rent Board has a consistent and public agenda. Do the Rent Board's actions make more sense to you if you view them as a Renters' advocacy group?
"If you're a landlord, you probably don't want to ... [end] up with a tenant that ... pays half of what you could get if you could legally rent the apartment to someone else."
Is this the meat of the "legal risk" that you were talking about earlier? If so, you're not talking about legal risk; you're talking about limiting earning potential.
For something like forty years it's been the position of the SF Rent Board that the renters of San Francisco should be able to find, secure, and retain affordable housing whose rental rates more-or-less track the -actual- increases of costs to the landlords who rent out the space. If you do even the smallest bit of research before you decide to become a landlord, you'll discover that the city will make it hard for you to throw people out of their homes simply because they aren't making enough money for you. What's more, you'll discover that things have been this way for decades.