When the authoer says landlords don't provide much benefit to society, I think they are comparing against a society in which landlords don't exist.
The author pays rent because they have no choice if they want permission to use a property; all available properties are owned by landlords.
(You can tell it's more about permission than service provided, because there are so many empty buildings, and many people would be delighted to be permitted to just go ahead and use them.)
In the alternative society where landlords don't exist, the author would not need to pay for permission. The "marginal" benefit is other things of value, such as making a nice place, and upkeep and repairs, which many landlords don't do much of.
If there is enough inequality in the area the 0.1% rent could be realistic.
You don't need to only imagine either this current system existing or anarchy.