This is truly another dimension of the More/Less government dichotomy they teach you in school.
Btw, it seems the local governments are quite Anti growth? Am I understanding that correctly?
You might think that renters living in the city would eventually outweigh the landowners and elect council members in favor of new housing, but instead SF passed a rent control measure which prevents the current renters from feeling the sting of the housing shortage so they aren't strongly incentivized to vote for more housing either.
Ie. gov gives rent subsidies of $100 to poor. Landlords react by rising rent prices by $100 because od this new 'disposable income'. The poor don't feel any difference, only the working population which gets squeezed.
The money flows from workers and businesses through the poor straight to rentiers.
Rent SUBSIDIES are a hidden redistribution as you discuss.
Rent CONTROL forces recent transplants to subsidize longtime residents
Ie. gov prevents raising rents to market levels for longtime tenants. They are less likely to move, driving up demand for the remaining housing, which is the only stock available for newer residents.
This then costs newcomers more, while longtime residents avoid paying the market rate on their housing - effectively subsidizing the in-place tenants.