There must be better ways to accomplish this that don’t result in valuable apartments sitting empty.
We tax normal people on a similar basis — if you settle a debt, you’ll get a 1099 for whatever was written off and must pay tax unless you are insolvent.
Without rent control you just have the market force people into musical chairs for highest bidders, for the benefits of the landlords.
The few good ideas seem to essentially be to treat housing as infrastructure. Of course building infrastructure is a problem in itself for many countries.
Those who need it? We're not getting that from rent control, either, because many people suffer from high rent who don't have a rent-controlled apartment. Some of this may be due to those who don't need it getting it, but I suspect the numbers of such cases aren't enough to account for all those who need it who don't get it.
> someone occupying an apartment at a low margin is only really a problem if we can't produce more apartments, or more opportunities, at the same price.
That's exactly the problem with rent control. Let's say that there are a shortage of apartments for $100/month in NYC. Who is going to try to build more apartments in NYC for $100/month? Anybody who tries is going to lose their shirt. We can't produce them at that price. Rent control doesn't make that problem go away.
$100 per month isn't realistic, $500 might be. While construction costs do rise, you are mostly paying for the exclusivity.
"High-rise apartment buildings cost an average $302 per square foot."
https://therealdeal.com/2018/05/15/surprise-nyc-remains-most...
You might be able to do it for $800/month, though.