The real answer tends to be building enough housing for everyone. That also tends to be politically unpalatable, because the people with all the emotional attachments want their neighborhoods frozen in amber. So low-income people get pushed out by increasing rent and high-income people move in.
Pick your poison, really.
Taking away someone's home involves potentially massive negative externalities (emotional and otherwise). Therefore, if you want to maintain the political theater that says capitalism is designed to benefit everyone, you have to accept that it may be preferable, optimal in fact, to incur some deadweight loss. Rent control is one strategy that does just that: as long as a person lives in a place, the rent can't go up.
Is it naively optimal? Nope. But it is (or can be, if you get the implementation right) actually optimal. It is a guarantee that a house can be a home, if the tenant so chooses, and it could be used to balance the aforementioned negative externalities.
Does it? Who knows, maybe, I'm not familiar enough with San Francisco's housing laws. Just because they implemented it poorly doesn't mean the concept is unsound or irrational and it doesn't mean that anyone in favor of the concept is "silly" or deserves to be condescended.
I didn't call anyone silly. I said the idea that economics cease to apply because strong emotions and italic fonts are involved is silly.
Is a place "home" to you? You're probably willing to pay for it. Don't like a place much? You'll be less willing to spend.
This runs out after a point, though. Warm fuzzies are great, but I can't eat them, wear them, or sleep under them. I also can't trade warm fuzzies for any things I can do those with.
I am misunderstanding your point?
Edit: I think I understand, my degrees in economics so I assumed you were using the term as its used in economics. Apparently you were not.