> while making it illegal to rent out (buy?) property purely to rent it
Why? You're making the notion of landlords illegal? What purpose does this solve, what benefit is there? Why should I not be allowed to purchase a house and then place a tenant in it?
In many places the rental community is larger than the homeowner community, these houses would simply sit on the market, rather than have someone buy it and put a renter in it. How on earth can you justify making home rentals illegal?
Technically, wouldn't home prices just fall until they were affordable enough for the community to purchase them? I suppose they could just sit in the owners hands forever, but that seems unlikely. I would think that, after some amount of time, they would prefer to have liquid capital over no capital.
Not taking any side in this debate, but that makes some economic sense to me.
Why? You're making the notion of landlords illegal? What purpose does this solve, what benefit is there? Why should I not be allowed to purchase a house and then place a tenant in it?
In many places the rental community is larger than the homeowner community, these houses would simply sit on the market, rather than have someone buy it and put a renter in it. How on earth can you justify making home rentals illegal?