An artist’s rendering of what the new Parkmerced apartment complex in San Francisco will look like when it’s completed. The development would include some rent-controlled units.

A proposed charter amendment that would have imposed rent-control restrictions on new housing created through “density bonus” programs has been withdrawn.

While Aaron Peskin, District 3 Supervisor, said the charter amendment polled well — and likely had the six votes needed to land on the ballot — he said he made the decision to table it “for the time being” because of the fundraising effort it would take to win at the ballot box. The move to table the charter amendment passed unanimously.

“I am concerned that the opponents will have bottomless pits of money to oppose the measure and the proponents — while they are very enthusiastic and large in number — might not have sufficient funds to get their message out,” he said.

Peskin said he remains committed to “enacting rent control whenever possible, now and in the foreseeable future” where there are opportunities to do so in ways that don’t “run afoul” of the state law.

In general, new development is exempt from rent control because of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibited cities from imposing rent control on apartments built after February 1995. But the law includes a loophole: Developers can agree to make some units rent-controlled “in exchange for direct financial assistance or density exceptions and other zoning modifications.”

Housing Action Coalition Executive Director Corey Smith said residential developers were unanimous in the conclusion that the charter amendment would have had a chilling effect on production of new housing.

“I am relieved it is not moving forward,” said Smith. “It would have been another thing on the ballot that was anti-housing, and another example of the Board of Supervisors making it difficult, if not impossible, to building housing.”

While groups like YIMBY Action and the Housing Action Coalition determined to kill the amendment, it would have taken proponents about $250,000 to get their message out.

“That kind of money is not likely to be forthcoming in this election,” said Peskin. “The timing is not right.”

J.K. Dineen and J.D. Morris are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com, jdmorris@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen, @thejdmorris

J.K. Dineen covers housing and real estate development. He joined The Chronicle in 2014 covering San Francisco land use politics for the City Hall team. He has since expanded his focus to explore housing and development issues throughout Northern California. He is the author of two books: "Here Tomorrow" (Heyday, 2013) and "High Spirits" (Heyday, 2015).

J.D. Morris covers San Francisco City Hall, focused on the Board of Supervisors. He joined The Chronicle in 2018 to cover energy and spent three years writing mostly about PG&E and California wildfires.

Before coming to The Chronicle, he reported on local government for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, where he was among the journalists awarded a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the 2017 North Bay wildfires.

He was previously the casino industry reporter for the Las Vegas Sun. Raised in Monterey County and Bakersfield, he has a bachelor's degree in rhetoric from UC Berkeley.