1) I'm not sure the magnitude of change is relevant to the analogy -- it doesn't alter the mechanics as much etc.

2) You can view renting as a sale -- the renter buying the utility of the space in exchange for a series of cash flows (but not paying for the economic upside/downside). Financial markets have the ability to separate components of assets (ex. voting vs non-voting shares) and value them; there's no reason to not do the same here.

In that structure a sublet is simply a rent on a rent.

My point is that it's not clear to me how the mechanism of short-selling itself implies market manipulation.

Point taken on how subletting is not selling.