#and on that last point my experience renting from more formally structured businesses vs. LLCs or single owners has been that

[radrush]

"corporations shouldn't be able to own residential property!!" okay maybe but like, most of the arguments I see in favor in this kind of regulation fall into the classic progressive/liberal trap of believing that relations inherent to the functioning of capitalism are only bad when boogymen like "big corporations" are engaged in them. It may be true that large corporations have more of an advantage than smaller property owners when it comes to manipulating local housing markets and maximizing returns on their investments, and these are things that frequently lead to evictions and make housing less affordable for renters in general. but it's the exact same behavior that smaller property owners are engaged in because the same incentives exist for both, even if they aren't able to operate with as much expediency as larger organizations. simply restricting the ability of corporations or even LLCs to own residential property seems like a misguided reform attempt to me. Much like congressional term limits, it seems like a policy that may be appealing for political reasons and may have good optics but would do little to address the underlying issues at play and potentially have unintended consequences.

Not to sound like a YIMBY but if we want to address the housing crisis that exists in basically every major metropolitan area in North America and ease the financial burdens that renters are facing (without completing restructuring society), I think we should start with reforming zoning laws to allow for more higher-density and mixed-use development in these areas, pass rent controls to ensure that a reasonable amount of new development will be affordable to people in the lowest income brackets, and invest in public transportation solutions that would support physical accessibility.