In a world with stable rents, renters also become long term residents and invested in the community. If someone’s only “invested” financially I doubt that they have the community’s interests at heart.

There will always be transients, students, travelers, and so on. In a world where most people rent and renters are indistinguishable from owners, renting will cease to be a signal that those people are present, but they won't disappear. They'll just be harder to identify.

The idea that municipal governance should intentionally disadvantage "transients, students, travelers, and so on" is appalling to me. This directly feeds into wealth inequality and the cycle of poverty. I get that people will want to protect their privilege, but I have no respect for it.

I would encourage you to try to read those words without any of the baggage often implied. The reason I chose the examples, "dorm room" and "magical year in NYC," above is that those both apply directly to me. If someone in my neighborhood in NYC would have said to me, "you don't really care deeply about this place, you're just going to be here for a year or two and then settle down somewhere else," they wouldn't have been entirely wrong.

You're picking anecdotes where you were "less invested" to justify policies that apply to all renters.