> Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads?
No, but rent control is counterproductive and hurts many of the people it purports to help. What are its effects?
It encourages landlords to neglect properties. As one socialist economist quipped, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." After World War II, Paris enacted rent control leading to the loss of tens of thousands of existing units. When rent control was banned in Cambridge, MA, the valuation of never-controlled properties rose more rapidly than previously rent controlled properties. This implies that the never-controlled properties were better maintained.
It accrues financial gains to people who tend to be older and more affluent. People with lucrative employment are more able to stay in place for longer. They can ride out the downturns.
It limits supply. This increases median rents for newly available units. It discourages the construction of new units.
It encourages over consumption. Empty nesters don't downsize. This makes it harder for young families to find housing. SF has the lowest portion of children of any major American city.
It privatizes a public problem.
As far as solving a housing crisis goes, rent control is about as helpful as arson.