> Rent control usually requires other interventions (that are usually not undertaken) to be net desirable, but those other interventions are not directly relevant to the problem posed.
Rent control is a malicious political hack for buying off the specific tenants most likely to mount a successful political campaign to actually address the root causes of high housing costs.
> Many housing markets are not “functioning”, and while many of the causes for that are policy related in many cases there are natural constraints as well.
The number of housing markets that naturally cause rents to absorb 100% of increases in local income is so close to zero that they may not even exist. Even if you're on a small island which is already full of maximally tall buildings, without regulatory restrictions prohibiting it, the rents still won't increase past the point that it becomes economical to build housing over top of the sea. That in addition to all of the ordinary possibilities when not restricted by zoning, like subdividing one large apartment into two or three smaller ones for the people who prioritize other things over size of living quarters, which then reduces competition for the remaining larger units and limits how much local income that rent increases can absorb.
> It's a housing problem that t frustrates the purpose of UBI wherever it exists, making it a UBI problem, as well.
Even if you don't have a UBI, you still have to address housing supply issues, because it also frustrates any other means of increasing the wealth of the local population. It's like arguing that a plague is a problem for the Affordable Care Act. Even if that's technically true, you have to address the plague regardless of whether you pass the ACA, and the general problem is not a specific problem when it is resolved through whatever independent means that are necessary regardless.