In spirit I agree with some of your ideas, and I hate rent-seeking.
However, where I live, I nearly ended in a situation where I was not allowed to sell an appartment I owned and had lived in for 20 years.
I had moved to a different city to work and live with my girlfriend, and had rented out the apartment, because obviously it is expensive to both hold one apartment and pay for a second one in the new city.
I had rented out the apartment, because initially it wasn't clear if we were staying in the new city or going back to the old city, once my girlfriend had finished her degree in that city.
I had made a written agreement with the tenant they rented for 2 years.
1 and a half year later, we had decided we were going to buy a house in the new city and stay there.
I wrote the tenant to inform them, I had decided to sell the apartment, come the 2 year date.
"OK", replied the tenant, "it's just that, I've decided I don't want to leave this nice cheap apartment anyway, and prefer to stay.."
So I start to read up on the law in my country regarding these things. It turned out, in my country it is nearly impossible to make a pre-determined time-limited rental. In fact, there are only 4 scenarios where it is possible.
It turns out, our contract should have had the specific wording "I rent out this apartment for a period of 2 years, because after 2 years I am going to move back to it myself, on this date, because I have the following specified timelimited activity I'm doing at location X". Because my contract only stipulated the duration, but not specified the exact legal grounding for the limitation, it was not valid.
TL;DR. I ended up having to 'bribe' the tenant with a huge sum of money, to get their written consent to leave the apartment by the originally agreed-upon date. I also ended up losing a significant amount of money on the sale, because the presence of the previous tenants hurt the price I could negotiate on the sale.
In fact, I would have made 5x more money on the sale,
than I made from received rent for renting out.
(ie I received maybe 50000 some-currency in rent (without expenses subtracted, so in practice it may have been more like 10-20000).
But the reduced salesprice was ~300000 lower, because I ran the sale while the tenants were still present (in hindsight, I should not have put it up for sale until the tenants were gone, but I paid a huge price to learn that lesson :-(.
So if I had let the appartment stay empty for 2 years instead of renting it out, I would have made 300k instead of 20-50k.
Apart from the fact, that those 50k ended up being what I had to pay in "bribe money" to get the tenants to leave. So I basically let two strangers live for free for 2 years in my apartment,
in return for them making it very difficult for me to sell my own apartment.
A final caveat is, that technically it's even illegal to leave the apartment empty in my country - if it's empty for a prolonged period of time, you have to register it for "public rental", at a reasonable rent price..
So, yes, I definitely want the rights of tenants in place and protected, but it is possible to protect them so much,
you actually make the life of people who have bought a single property miserable.
A postscript: I know many won't buy my arguments about "losing money" here, since the money I would potentially earn or lose here, are exactly the sort of 'board game monopoly money' we are arguing about whether anybody should have or be entitled to.
IE the money I would make back on the sale of the apartment I have owned for 20 years, are exactly those 'the game is rigged' money,
that appear out of thin air, for not exactly doing anything (apart from maintaining my apartment against wear and tear.)