Earlier quoted context omitted.
I asked if you would yield price controls, which certainly do exist, and I was curious whether wild market fluctuations were pivotal to your position. I'm assuming this is why you haven't addressed the essence of my point.
I haven't addressed the essence of your point because I don't know what it is. Rent control only really exists in large cities that have experienced wild market fluctuations (in the form of surging rent prices) that displaced renters. If there weren't surging rents displacing people, why would there be rent control? In that case, I would yield them... but in that case, they wouldn't have existed in the first place. S…
Because politicians try to appease renters, who in turn tend to wrongly assume that "rent control" is something that would benefit them. A prevalent assumption among renters seems to be that if a given thing is bad for landlords, it must automatically be good for renters. For example, when landlords back advertisements against rent control measures, that is actually given as a reason by "tenant's rights" advocates to vote the opposite way.
By the way, the rest of the "tenant's rights" -- including any kind of tenant rights -- also contribute to homelessness and high rent prices. Also contributing are building codes, construction codes, use codes, etc. Without any of those, apartments would necessarily be dirt cheap, and there would be no such thing as homelessness.