[quickthrower2]

If the person who lived their for 55 years makes $10m from the increase in land value, how much should of this should he give to the people who rented for 55 years, lived in the same neighborhood, and went about their days with smiles as to make the place nice to live in?

Also what if he was a real asshole, rude to everyone, kicking in fences, and his dogs barking 24/7, and the neighbourhood was doing well despite him?

[motohagiography]

Property owners choose the tenants, and didn't sell to developers sooner. I also advocate co-op housing instead of welfare driven projects, where tenants become members who get equity out of their subsidized co-ops. When you compare the safety and quality neighbourhoods with co-ops to pure public and subsidized housing, they're completely different. Even places with 100y land leases and resale value rules are better for permanent tenants.

Renting a single place for decades is less common in north america, as homeowner friendly policies were designed to prevent the society from sliding into the serfdom that is more traditional in europe and elsewhere. If a homeowner was a problem, neighbours have police. There's a dynamic that works pretty well when there isn't a thumb on the scale.