They are already making the city a valuable place to live. I've heard it called the 'schoolteacher paradox'. A brilliant schoolteacher moves to a new area and b

They are already making the city a valuable place to live. I've heard it called the 'schoolteacher paradox'. A brilliant schoolteacher moves to a new area and begins working at a school. Her effect on grades drives the school up through the rankings. This attracts interest in moving into the area, which drives demand for housing and voila, she just drove up her own rent. Her landlord gets to extract more wealth from her. The high value of property in San Francisco is a lot to do with its proximity to amenities and services provided for by the very people suffering because of continually rising property prices. This is a highly parasitic dynamic. If moral judgements are really your primary concern why are you advocating for eliminating a policy that allows a tiny bit of clawback from the pre-existing titanic wealth transfer that goes from renter to landlord? Moreover, it's a policy that by and large keeps people who do necessary work. There's a fair, economically efficient solution to all of this, of course: the 100% land value tax. Rent control is merely a hack that offsets some of the gargantuan harm done by leeches extracting value from the communities surrounding them via untaxed land. I'd be fine with seeing it go... after implementing a 100% land value tax.