And logically, it makes no sense that renters get to keep living in a place they're renting at roughly the same price for as long as they'd like. That just seems ludicrous to me, as rational concept.

I agree, except when approached as a logic puzzle it loses all human context. Fact is you are talking about changing a situation that would negatively impact many people, so it warrants a bit deeper thinking.

Seems to me that you should at least attempt to see someone's perspective and assess the merit of their position without actually being one of them. Otherwise there's no point in even talking about this because you'd side with the renter literally no matter what, which is a ridiculous conversation to have.

Fair enough, I'm not saying I'm not considering different views but I am saying that when the pros and cons of an argument comes down to negatively effecting one group of people versus another, I'm likely to side with the group I can most relate to, unless there is a good reason not to.

I said it's unfair to the property owner to deny them the chance to take advantage of the market circumstances that have swung in their favor. It is not unfair, in my opinion, to tell someone who has signed a lease that the next contract they sign will have different pricing terms, or that they need to move out of the property because the owner wants to redevelop it. Sad, maybe, depending on the circumstances. But not unfair.

Agreed and agreed with some reservations.

As for your last points about gentrification, I'm really not against change. I represent that change, being a decently well-off, educated techie. But I think there is room to allow people of all walks of life to live here. Maybe not everyone who wants to live in SF will live here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to at least accommodate current residents in meaningful ways, rather than casting them aside because they aren't as rich as the newcomers. That's all.