While I can appreciate the overall objectives in what the group is trying to do, I prefer evidence based legislation that is not just a "feel good" solution, but one that actually achieves the goals set out.

Rent control, or rent stabilization has had an overall negative effect on housing affordability in places where it has been implemented. It sounds good on the surface, but it effects the housing stock in some unexpected ways. There are numerous studies that highlight this fact. This one for example, concludes the following:

>Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. A point of future research would be to design an optimal social insurance program to insure renters against large rent increases.

I would encourage anyone to read the study in it's entirety or seek out your own resources, the conclusions are always the same.