So why not create a lifetime rent control that is tied to the occupancy of the current tenant? One they're gone, it's fair game for anyone at any price and you protect the "right to a home" for the existing resident.
That said, I don't think a rental can ever be a home in the way you describe it. The fact that the property is owned by another party means the resident will always be limited in their sense of place during their tenancy. This example is egregious but as an example, there's nothing to force a landlord to rebuild a property with after a disaster for the tenant with the insurance money.
I'd love a simple explanation as to how rent control is any different than any other form of redistribution. Forcing someone to provide access to an asset they've invested in below market prices seems bad to me.
Generally speaking, that's how rent control is managed. The people who dream up rent control somehow never realize that property owners will change their behavior based on how they expect rent control to affect them. So, when a tenant moves out, for whatever reason, the property owner doesn't set rent based on the current economy, instead rent is based on what the market might look like years down the line.
So, after a few years, rent control effectively guarantees that no apartment is available at an affordable price. At least, you have to live in a controlled apartment for a few years for inflation to erode the value of money you send your landlord every month enough that you can feel like the apartment is affordable. And, of course, the people moving from one rent controlled apartment to another are affected by the market distortion as much as anyone else.
And places all over the world manage to provide affordable housing without rent control, so long as they allow their housing markets to work.
That goes both ways. Nobody will pay if its too high (you will pay another slightly cheaper landlord, then) and thus landlord has to lower prices. Thus rent control apts are, in fact, at market rate. Its just that market rate is higher than you think it is.
When the market is exploding prices will rise regardless of rent control to crazy amounts.
People should disclose if they have an interest in this thread, since last I remember, all landlords are pretty wealthy people without that problem. (they own their place + other places, so, yeah)
Yes rent control apartments are at market rate. But rent control discourages people from ever moving, so the market of available housing is significantly smaller, thereby driving up prices for the few units that are in the market. It is an artificially distorted market.
That's how any sensible rent control ordinance would work, but that's not how it works in San Francisco. Units remain under rent control even if a tenant voluntarily moves out, dies, etc.
That said, I don't think a rental can ever be a home in the way you describe it. The fact that the property is owned by another party means the resident will always be limited in their sense of place during their tenancy. This example is egregious but as an example, there's nothing to force a landlord to rebuild a property with after a disaster for the tenant with the insurance money.