The transaction isn’t even close to this.
Imagine the case of a working class family that has lived in CA for generations. The elderly grandmother owns a home because she bought it in the 1950s when things were not so broken. She has two grown children, each with families. One family lives in her house with her, because that’s all they can afford, but that’s okay because they want to stay close to home.
The other family rents a home nearby, because by the time whey were adults, hosing was out of reach.
In California, the only thing stopping rent increase is people’s ability to pay. In San Francisco, a 3bd apartment costs at least $4500/mo, and the median price is more like 8-10k per month.
That is because there are so very few available, and there are enough two income bankers and tech worker households who make enough to justify that rent that the market has no room for anyone else.
We go back to the working class family example, assuming the adults are gainfully employed and each making $60k/year. All they want is to continue living in the town they grew up in, where they have friends and decent jobs and their elderly parent to stay near. They pay $4000/mo, which is near the low end of market rate for a 3bd home for their family of 4, and also about half their after-tax income.
Now this UBI program (or any other change) happens, and a lot more income is suddenly flowing nearby. Anyone who for any reason finds themselves needing a new apartment has a little more money available, and so they can inch up just a bit in the market. But because demand so radically dwarfs supply, this means rents just tick up about 10% in short order.
So back to that family, the landlord notices the market has moved, and he raises the rent 10%. The landlord gains $400/mo. The tenants gain nothing except the “privelege” of non-eviction.
They now have to decide to pay more just to stay in place, or to try and downgrade to a worse apartment to keep costs in check. And if they do downgrade, they’re just displacing someone else who is farther down the economic ladder.
You described a free market scenario, which works on a whiteboard.
In the real world, California property owners have a monopoly on a fixed supply of housing, and nobody gets to participate in the California economy without a place to sleep at night. Thus any increase in productivity locally just goes to the property owners in short order, as they are enabled by the policies they’ve long fought for to extract their rental tax up to the ability of each person to pay. They use this unilateral power to extract all the gains.