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?
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.
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.