While it may sound socially just it is also one of most un-progressive (conservative) things you can imagine. It literally conserves the population of a given district.
Well, who said conservative is bad?
It's about the interests of this or that group (e.g. given population vs people coming from outside). Arguments can be made for either, but if a given population is not protected, then those coming from outside wont be protected (from people coming from outside later on) either.
People build cities to be protected and prosper long time in them, not to give opportunities to third parties to come and displace them from the places they've built and helped grow.
> People build cities to be protected and prosper long time in them, not to give opportunities to third parties to come and displace them from the places they've built and helped grow.
Well you're basically repeating Donald Trump's words when he explains why he wants to build a wall, and last time I have checked nobody calls him progressive.
Just do s/cities/countries/ and you're all set.
Neither is fair, but both are unfair in different ways. Your preference for market distribution, as opposed to lottery distribution (which is what rent control essentially is) is largely an ideological one.
And only one of them makes it possible for both you and the person with more money than you to have an apartment.
And yet that is the phrase we use, because people do feel a sense of ownership about their living space even when legally they have no ownership. A lot of these policies come down to how much we want to back that feeling up with legal rights.
You can't be progressive and conservative at the same time! You can barely be progressive if you hold conservative view on one of the most important issues. You can only be centrist that way.
Can't speak for him, but if you believe a free market has the same housing results are as a centrally planned market, well, damn.