I don't see a moral basis, so I don't see how anything that impacts the interests of renters can be unfair. Bad on pragmatic level, perhaps, but not a moral one.
Without it, though, rent is partially a stream of income derived from labor (upkeep, management, construction) and partially a stream of income derived from a state granted monopoly over a parcel of 4 billion year old land.
The moratorium is, in part, tacit recognition of this. Everybody knows that a large slice of rental income is completely unearned - even landlords.
Few would seriously believe that the sky high rental incomes derived from these is really earned, for instance - it's an entitlement: https://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2019/08/06/1067844_10-...
No, it's quite simple. Being a landlord is being a business owner. You are providing a service and in exchange you get paid enough to make construction of housing worthwhile. Except, most landlords break even and only get paid in the form of building equity. It'll take decades to pay the mortgage off.
>The moratorium is, in part, tacit recognition of this. Everybody knows that a large slice of rental income is completely unearned - even landlords.
>Few would seriously believe that the sky high rental incomes derived from these is really earned, for instance
If nobody is paying for the house then there will be no house for you to live in. It's that simple.
But most rents are not executed in that manner. The owner of the property is still responsible for maintaining it, is responsible for repairs if the tenant breaks something and bails, is responsible to the government for the property taxes, is responsible to the bank (or other lender) for the mortgage, is responsible for the safety of the parties inside the house, and so on. It's not a "Hey, fuck you little guy you owe me $1000/month and I don't care that you have no running water and that the lights spark when you flip that switch." situation.
With that comes a moral responsibility to make sure that everyone can obtain reasonable shelter. On the other side, for the person that owns the land, they provide access to what they own (as per the legal system that society has agreed upon -- private transfer of property, the banking system, etc). Not only do they provide access, they also provide the service of upkeep to the dwelling, upkeep of fixtures and security (locks, access control, etc). So it isn't like they are sitting back and collecting an income from the air that other people breath.
If you dig just a little deeper into precisely how this was done, it gets extremely ugly very fast.
The only real argument for not resetting an inequitable distribution of land ownership is that the owners of unearned privilege have a habit of defending that privilege with extreme violence.
The US invasion of Cuba subsequent to their land redistribution was one example of this.
That’s more of a rationalization than a moral foundation. The land we’re talking about (in North America), in a lot of cases, was stolen by means of violent force from the indigenous people who lived here before the arrival of European settlers. If we’re going to call that a moral basis, then we’re back to arguing the account of Thrasymachus [1] and might makes right. It’s a cynical take on justice, to be sure, but also a difficult one to counter.