It doesnt account for renters, it doesnt account for down payments, and it doesnt account for the cost of new construction.

There wont be anywhere for people with no down payment and no credit to rent, and new housing wont be built.

When pressed on this, people in the past have resorted to the idea that then the government will provide low income rental market.

Maybe humans are allowed to own some maximum number of properties for the purposes of renting it out, and that number will decrease over time.

Maybe banks can own houses and rent them out at some capped amount.

Maybe the government can own houses and rent them out with the express purpose of "rent to own", with absolutely no intention of "earning a profit".

I don't have all the answers, but I think it's pretty clear that companies owning 40% of ALL residental homes in a city and making massive profit renting them out does not make housing affordable, and it does not allow people to have their basic human needs met. Therefore something needs to change.

There is also a fundamental tension between forces driving people into dense urban apartments and the desire for home ownership. When you look at dense European cities, virtually nobody owns their flat.

Overall, Im not opposed to banning mega investors, but think it will just make more opportunity for small scale rental companies. This reference [2], talks about some of the laws proposed in California, but also has a lot of valuable context.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023110...

https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/03/institutional-investo...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/hou...

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/06/05/cities-where...

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2023/

(There was an article here on HN a couple of months back that was "Investors own 40% of homes in <some city>" - I can't find it now.

The 2-3% number is comprehensive nationwide data.