I, for one, would like to raise the bar a bit and give more people actually good options.
Anyone who suggests that a "best option" that involves commuting 3 hours every day is actually a good option is not someone I want in charge of public policy.
I have seen a lot of people in my area assert that my political will should be subordinate to theirs because I came from somewhere else. Last place I lived, the notion that a particular demographic I fall into should be kept out of the general housing market when possible due to pricing others out was not just a fringe idea but part of several (ultimately successful) city council candidates' platforms. Perhaps people in your area are less nutty about outsiders.
If someone can't afford to live in some area…
Yes, those who can't afford the rent can live elsewhere, so rent control is not needed.
> If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth.
Personal responsibility is still a thing. If someone can't afford to live in some area, or they don't like what they're getting out of it in terms of wages or expenses, they shouldn't move there.
> They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing
If people continue to move there, they are signaling they are OK with low wages or high expenses or any other drawbacks associated with that choice. If they are not OK with those things, they shouldn't move there.