That's decidedly untrue. In many markets you can make the case that conservative assumptions result in a cheaper buy option. However, the Bay Area in particular throws that calculus in reverse for many neighborhoods and property types.
Your argument seems to rely on the premise that buying is monteraily cheaper in the long run as long as you're willing to put in nominal sweat equity and risk. And that labor buys you some sort of citizenship that money, for the same amount of tenure, does not. The Bay Area market does not reward that puritanical ethic.
So yes, I'll concede that in the temporary situation that buy is more expensive than rent, and there's a market correction coming, it's savvy to rent, but those aren't the folks that cry "Gentrification!".
And yes, owning a deed to your place or, even better, owning a business in the neighborhood, counts for more than just "having been there".
1) They can take off any time. A new job? A market crash? No problem, just pack your stuff and leave. 2) Someone else is doing all the maintenance and dealing with building codes and paying all the taxes, etc.
Because of the inherent risk in owning a home and the effort required to maintain it, it will always be cheaper to buy than rent. If someone likes their neighborhood, but isn't willing to commit and put in the work, they deserve what's coming for them.