Well I think the main issue is investors in real estate to then rent out are taking a business risk. There is no zero risk income. The renter on the other hand has no choice but to rent shelter. This is justified in my opinion.
If the state willingly makes their market unattractive for "people that can take a risk", then that can be criticized holistically as well. But just saying "they took a risk" and allowing for any outcome because of that is cognitively negligent.
To reply to your edit, to take a risk and have a control on the bad outcomes kinda makes it not taking a risk.
Would you hold that same opinion for other things as well? Say you own your house, and suddenly the local government mandates that you give it to them with no compensation. Would you say "that's just a risk of owning a house"?
Let's be reasonable here, having a clear, consistent and enforced legal system is a key requirement to make long term investments in anything. If you want to have a stable country and strong economy you must have such a legal system
That is actually a normal risk of ANY business - government passing legislation that makes you less profitable. ISP? Google? Cable Companies? All face government pressure. And they also lobby the governments to get their way. No different from REITs also probably lobbying hard to force rents up, and force money to be spent on shelter instead of productive uses like investment, buying goods and services, hiring employees. I think you have a bit of reverse logic there, thinking that by kicking renters out and protecting landlords, we are "improving the economy".
Where are the minimum-wage-affordable apartments in nyc?
“Choice”
If people could manage stepping off the boat at Ellis island with maybe a suitcase but not a scrap of English or a dollar to their name a hundred years ago, people can manage a trip out of the city or out of the state today. Hell, today there's probably a subreddit and series of Youtube tutorials that will lay the plan out for you step by step.
I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's obviously not impossible. Being able to move isn't a sign of privilege in modern society, stability is privilege. The poor are always at risk of losing what little they have and needing to move on or start over.
Otherwise you wouldn't have given that advice, since simply buying a bus ticket doesn't save them from barely even being able to afford food. Right?
You implied it was simply an issue of buying a bus ticket - magical hand wave. It’s not pedantic to ask the obvious follow-up question: then what?
It's not difficult. I moved thousands of kilometers and countries away on my own.