This kind of mustache-twirling evil plan is insanely expensive. As in insta-bankruptcy expensive. Plus you'd have all kind of things backfiring, like business moving away because their rent, or their employees' rent are too expensive.
> Now, let's say I want to run a monopoly like that.
By all means, go ahead, I'll buy your properties at the foreclosure auctions.
The only way you'd be able to make your evil plan work would be with the support of a government. (With someone else paying the tab.)
Yeah, that happens in SF. Businesses can no longer afford the latest in a series of rent hikes, they close down, and get replaced with a bar or trendy coffee shop.
> ...would be with the support of a government.
Serious question: Isn't the institution and retention of rabidly anti-development zoning laws government support of what one might call a "natural monopoly"?
Even Adam Smith thought monopolies were the greatest threat to a functioning capitalist economy.
To see an analogy for why take something (unrelated) like a theoretical "monopoly" - currently illegal to establish one - , that becomes a monopoly, starts charging monopoly prices, and buys any new competitors while they're still tiny, for 100x earnings, so that it can retain a monopoly, including paying commpetitors not to enter the field at all. This happens, and happened.
They then charge based more on intrinsic utility rather than the competitive commodity price, and do all sorts of lock-in stuff to retain their monopoly advantage.
Now, let's say I want to run a monopoly like that. Are you forcing me to "pick up your tab" by supporting the law that makes my plan to set up that monopoly illegal? In other words, by supporting laws that make this business plan illegal, are you forcing me the businessman to pick up your tab as a consumer?
Remember, trusts and monopolies (a historical fact) happened through other simple, pure private contracts and normal market behavior.
If you're okay with regulating this (and unless you want to start paying 5x more for many of your everyday items, then you are), then I don't see why you shouldn't be okay with regulating the housing market: the natural market prices aren't somehow automatically morally afforded. Society gets to choose different priorities at times.
Edit: Boy do you guys not get an analogy :) (This is at -1.) I've made it a bit more explicit. First of all, to the respondent who said that is not how trusts/monopolies work, please look up the history of monopolies. They were by private contracts and transactions that are not illegal by themselves, but deprive everyone of a competitive market. Secondly, this is an analogy - because by regulating monopolies, you are removing someone's right to simply set a market price, or agree to a bundle deal with another company, or purchase certain other companies, and similar normal, everyday, market behaviors, that any company can do unless they happen to have shored up a monopoly position. The poster who called my characterization "mustache-twirling" is exactly right: this mustache-twirling behavior is precisely what is allowed if you think it is morally wrong to regulate markets.