Living where one has historically lived is interesting, take London - you're implying it should be a birth right for natives - what about the immigrant flow into such cities, how would you reconcile the "right of natives" with human capital?
As for tenants v landlords, I believe it should be difficult to evict tenants except in cases where the tenant is clearly a danger to others or to the home itself. If they are vandalizing the property, that should be an eviction. Likewise if they are cooking meth. But I think tenants should be protected if, eg, their income drops due to a layoff or unforseen medical expense.
They should stay if they can't pay? Who takes the loss? It would be sensible to have a government program to help people in such circumstances. But if you'd be asking for the landlord to just take the loss, that's not sensible. The owner is probably barely breaking even on rent vs. costs, so they can't afford it.
This also assumes good faith on behalf of the renters.
Landlords always say that they should be compensated for the risk of homeownership. If that's true, then some landlords need to lose money.
The system you purpose is not a loss some times, it is a system that can be abused all the time.
Who says landlords aren't losing money?
I am currently taking a loss. Two units are rent control at 600 per month, the third at 2300 hasn't paid in ten months with an eviction trial next week, I am in the last unit. I will be shutting down the property and using it as a single family home due to this loss. If you remove the incentive you remove housing or prices rise to cover the risk.
I see rent control as privatizing the cost of a social problem. You create restrictive zoning then say random landlords will subsidize people's rents. The single family home owners should share in the cost, and to a lesser degree, so should the renters who benefit.
Now you purpose an expansion on that same idea. Just remove zoning so housing can be built. Don't add more impediments like relocation fees and guaranteed housing in new construction for old residents and price controls. Then you will just have legacy units and luxury housing, an exacerbation of the current system.
1. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-compa...
That seems like a statement that feels good, but what should be the desired outcome for the benefit of society?
If you make taking a loss being the norm for a landlord, the outcome won't be having landlords grin and bear it and a city full of happy renters.
No, the outcome will be landlords will stop renting out since it doesn't make sense to take a loss. So the availability of rental units will dry up.