Now that I've said some nice things about landlords, I'll say something less flattering: bad landlords find convenient cover in supply-constrained markets. Which, of course, is what we have. If you want to stick it to lazy, cheap, do-nothing landlords, then let somebody build a brand-new apt complex right next door to their crappy units and see how long they can get away with their insouciance in that kind of market.

If a landlord does not maintain the property, over the long run they will not be able to charge the same rent versus a similar, maintained unit.

I've used this to my advantage before. I moved into a building that needed a fresh coat of paint and had poor reviews of their maintenance and saved ~10-15% from market rent because I didn't care about appearances and am handy enough to fix a leaky faucet, etc. myself.

Sure they’ll lose relative to the place next door, but they’ll win relative to their same unit 10 years ago because the land underneath their building (and the amenities around it) have increased in value so dramatically.

Right, but who cares? Are we trying to soak rich people or are we trying to make sure there's an abundance of housing? Are we trying to help the poor? Or are we mostly concerned with knocking the rich down a peg?

Uhhh, I care that we create incentives that yield desired behavior: building high quality housing that supports growth and mitigates urban squalor.

The current state is the actual opposite of that incentive. You can just buy up a parking lot in downtown Manhattan, pay ~$0 taxes on it, and keep it off the market while people continue to struggle to find housing and prices continue to climb. Then when the land has appreciated (through no actions of your own, in fact in spite of your own actions) you can sell for millions of dollars of upside.