Well they bought the place in 2005 for about 1/3 of what the current Redfin estimate is, so probably very little?

And even if that were not the case, with real estate climbing 8% or more per year, they are still in line for a huge payday if / when they choose to sell.

Well that depends - if the real estate market holds and they pay for all the appropriate upkeeps. What about the situation where real estate properties go down and it's difficult to find renters or pay for upkeep on the property. Also - rental real estate doesn't rise in the same way the single family homes do.

The landlord is the scourge narrative bugs me. There are for sure a bunch of terrible land lords especially the huge soulless companies but there are a lot of little family operations that don't try and gouge their tenants.

Not sure what the point you're attempting to make with those hypotheticals is? What if winning the lottery came with a bunch of pitfalls?

I don't begrudging the ppl who bought houses for their good fortune. I resent when those people block new development in the name of maintaining "historical character" or whatever other invented excuse to keep their own property values high.

But except for the interest that is still money going to the landlord as they have the property itself.

Interest, capital expenditures, maintenance, insurance, potential lawsuits (hopefully not), time spent managing the properties. Don't disagree with you - it pays off the principal also goes towards other things. For some people not owning, having to take care of a property or put significant amounts of capital into a property is an asset. Not everyone for sure, but some people. For example myself until my late 30s was a happy renter - would I prefer the money going elsewhere? Yes. Would I have been able to afford the same lifestyle in the city? Absolutely not.