> Landowners, I think, I have two options: find ways to fracture/disempower the rent base in the communities where they invest or else find a way to keep the number of non-renters well over 50%.

I would say they already are disempowered. It is unfortunately pretty hard to organize anything when you have to worry about high rent, not losing your job or having to move every few years. What we have seen in the last decades is that it is now hard to do much at all through organizing unless you can somehow affect the economy. Which you can't if you risk getting fired or evicted doing so. Look at Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. for the results.

Everything is close by double digits if you count by percentage points. I.e. there are 65% of households living in their own house at this time [1] so the renters are close by 16% to outnumber owners. Even if there had been 99% ownership rate the renters would have been still close by double digits (50%) to outnumbering owners.

It's more prudent to look at the ratio of owners and renters, which is 1.85:1, there are almost twice as many owner households than renters.

1. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

I said in my community, where the ratio of owners to renters is more like .5:1.

"Community" is a loose term, you could call an apartment building your community and that would be 1:0 renters to owners. The issue you seem to be arguing with is that home owners are a big majority and will vote as a block against anybody who comes after them with "equity" plans, right and left alike. If your community had been a township or a county then you could enact whatever laws you think will make renting more comfortable than ownership but otherwise you live in a democracy of the homeowners.

By community I mean precinct. I mean the people from whom I need to recruit votes.

Can't speak for your jurisdiction, but I live in the UK where houses are (i) infamously unaffordable and (ii) 65% of the population owns a home, generally sitting on its own plot of land which in much of the country represents a large fraction of the value of the house, and generally representing something that will [have] take[n] a couple of decades to pay off. The remaining 35% obviously skews towards politically uninfluential groups (the young, the poor, the immigrant, those not tied to particular place) and of course people that want to buy a house to set them up for life asap. Home ownership is falling, but not to the extent that the government doesn't see keeping house prices rising as one of its highest political priorities.

> Renters are close to out-numbering non-renters by double digits.

This didn't sound right to me - according to the census bureau there are nearly twice as many owners as renters in America (1). So I'm not sure what discrepency you're pointing out there.

And anecdotally there was an explosion in demand last year while interest rates were crazy low and the rate of first time home purchasing was similarly crazy in my area. It was very easy for people to get the money to buy homes, but there was a shortage of housing stock.

(1) https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf

In my community.