End of the day, short term leases make rents float at the cost of making renters second class citizens who cannot stay in any one place or area.
Rent control is a way to deal with that. It exists because voters care deeply about it.
You've got to address a moral judgement you've implicitly made: What makes the current renters of a city more deserving than the future renters who might move to the city?
But I totally see how this is kind of hypocritical. I just want things my way, everywhere. :-] idk!
I suppose that the next-best thing is to have local control with freedom of movement. The United States and cities are kind of like this--- it allows for states and cities to try out different policies, and compete based on policy.
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.