> attracting people willing to pay double to move there

What active behavior are we actually talking about? Making the place nicer? I feel like there's got to be actual some breathing room between "savior of the murder capital Pine Bluff" and "big bad real estate investor gentrifying people out of their homes."

I don't know if you've ever lived in a place like Pine Bluff, but most people own. It's 52% in the city[0] and I imagine quite a bit higher (70-80% wouldn't surprise me) in the more rural areas. And keep in mind the way these statistics are calculated, all the vacant buildings count as part of that 48%, so the number of renters is likely ~1/3 or less the number of owners.

So unlike places with very high rents but also where it seems like 3/4 of all buildings are rented out, most people in Pine Bluff would be objectively better off if rents doubled overnight with corresponding increases to the economy and local services.

To be blunt, if you're renting you have no claim to the property or lodging beyond the term of the lease. That's the entire point. I do believe human beings have a right to housing, but you do not have the right to live in someone else's house if they don't want you there.

[0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pinebluffcityarkansas