> But it feels fundamentally wrong that detached, single-family (zoning restricted) homes are allowed to be purchased by investment firms & exclusively used as rentals.
I know what you're saying, and I agree, but playing devil's advocate here, you could imagine a society where there are no owner occupied dwellings at all, everyone rents. In theory, it would actually be a great equaliser because anyone could invest in the property owning corporations for a return of that income, and you wouldn't have some people becoming stupidly rich for no reason other than sitting in a house that happens to increase massively in price.
(I am of course speaking of an imaginary world where tenants rights were at the top and they couldn't just be removed from a home at the whim of the landlord).
> an imaginary world where tenants rights were at the top and they couldn't just be removed from a home at the whim of the landlord
On the contrary, strong tenants' rights are correlated with higher rents and worse availability of rentals; or it is at least in the real world, where neither tenants nor landlords are angels.
I know what you're saying, and I agree, but playing devil's advocate here, you could imagine a society where there are no owner occupied dwellings at all, everyone rents. In theory, it would actually be a great equaliser because anyone could invest in the property owning corporations for a return of that income, and you wouldn't have some people becoming stupidly rich for no reason other than sitting in a house that happens to increase massively in price.
(I am of course speaking of an imaginary world where tenants rights were at the top and they couldn't just be removed from a home at the whim of the landlord).