"Yeah, people moving into expensive areas and bidding up rent prices generally aren't wealthy, my bad."
My impression was that in a housing market without rent control, people are displaced by periodic, incremental yet substantial increases in rent, not a one-time multiplication of rent. If that's the case, then it's not an issue of the poor being displaced by the wealthy. It's people being displaced by others who are a rung or two above them on the economic ladder.
You're also not taking into account poorer people who want to move every once in a while instead of staying in the same place. They end up having to pay the rent control tax each time they move just like the "wealthy." Taxing mobility is rife with unintended consequences.
You're right, I'm not taking the poorer people who want to move into account. I'm not an anti-market housing zealot. The only thing I'm saying is that the human cost of displacement seems to me to be large enough that we should be willing to sacrifice market rents for people who have been living in an area that's becoming expensive to live in. The people who create the value should have the first shot at enjoying that value, it shouldn't be arbitrarily handed over to the wealthy.
My impression was that in a housing market without rent control, people are displaced by periodic, incremental yet substantial increases in rent, not a one-time multiplication of rent. If that's the case, then it's not an issue of the poor being displaced by the wealthy. It's people being displaced by others who are a rung or two above them on the economic ladder.
You're also not taking into account poorer people who want to move every once in a while instead of staying in the same place. They end up having to pay the rent control tax each time they move just like the "wealthy." Taxing mobility is rife with unintended consequences.