Well, yes it's a zero sum game.
If you treat group A better than B, then group B by definition is treated worse than group A. That's a tautology.
Don't we all hope to get to a good old age and then have that taken into account where necessary? I don't see how being considerate to the old, which presumably we all hope to be, disadvantages anyone. Except those who die young, of course, but saying don't treat the old well because someone else might die young would mean no state pensions ever, right?
This elderly person has choices. In your arguments, she has the facilities to make the choices. And she is choosing to only seek one option and one option only. This is not a destitute and forgotten woman (again, friend of a celebrity, not to mention other friends, who have offered to help her). Just because she is old, does not mean she is being ill-considered or bullied, or neglected.
I could only wish to have the choices and support this woman has her age, if God willing I get to an old age.
And for the record, I would probably let her stay as well. But this landlord does not want her to stay as he has a specific need for the property. And that doesn't make him cold-hearted.
If we are talking about the specific case - which I haven't so far, I've talked in generalities and from my own position, I think we just don't know enough of the facts to make a complete judgement. Yes, the tenant has choices and options but even with resources and support having to move at her age is a risk. And we know almost nothing about the landlord's situation or that of the relative he wants the property for, so we don't know anything really about that "specific need", whether he is cold-hearted or not, or how his stated need for the property weighs against the interests of the current tenant.
Perhaps part of the problem is the economic model of the personal/individual landlord, which sets up the possibility of conflicting personal interests. From that point of view the model of corporate or collective ownership would seem a better one all round.
Yes. Because the corporate model would voluntarily not raise her rent for over a decade, because they want to be nice. It is apparent that she has relied on the goodwill of the landlord (and his father before him), to live the way she has. She would not even be a consideration under the corporate model, or would have been priced out somewhere around 1995. Individual landlords are sometimes the only or best option for some folks.
There is a thread around here specifically about compassionate landlords. I have been a "compassionate" landlord for nearly a decade. 4 out of my last 6 tenants work a local non-profit that requires higher education but pays bumpkis. I charge my tenants waaaaayy below market rent because they have all been responsible and have done things on their own to maintain or improve the property (with my permission). It's my old residence that I may use as my snowbird house when I am older and move up north, so it is more important to me that it maintains good vibes and good caretakers. And I like being able to help people who work for a cause I believe in. And if I ever move back in I will likely host interns from the organization, at cost-only (they would pay only utilities). But everyone is expected to leave if and when I decide I want my home back. And I would give probably at least 6 months notice (as I did the one time I had to do renos on the property and couldn't while the tenant was there).
I also offer my tenants a 2-yr lease, in which I agree to have the property available to them as long as they keep to terms, for 2 years. And on their end it is a month-month, meaning they can leave when they want with 30 days notice. They could NEVER find such a deal from a corporate model.