If you want to have an honest talk about it, then state the facts of this case and ask other people how they feel about this particular situation and how this unique situation factors into the grand scheme of things.
The property owner thinks big picture, not little picture.
He would like to retire within a half decade to a decade, in his 50s either way.
Rent-controlled tenants don't pay enough to make it worth his time to deal with, and big picture he will make more resetting his rent control to future rents after depriving tenants of housing for a half decade.
I did not comment on what Western Europeans might be residing there in the interim and what money might make its way into his European bank accounts by way of mystical magic. For the next five years. Yay artificial market distortions. I still am not commenting on those Western Europeans or that mystical magic that is available to anyone with an IQ over 70, except to say that it's not AirBNB or similar, nor is it human trafficking or anything like that.
He is not a long-time landlord paying off a 2002 debt obligation, he's paying off a 2015 obligation. The 2002 folks make sense, that this is a 2015 person is interesting.
Ellis Act makes the most sense for him.
There has been much literature about how much rent control screws local renters and longtime residents. As in, open any scholarly journal of housing economics.
This was, to me, an interesting anecdote. He's taking the "Nuclear Option" afforded by the Ellis Act of just letting them sit vacant for a full half-decade.
Why don't more property owners take the Nuclear Option? Just kick them all out, let it sit vacant, and cash in to retire?