> I see no reason why someone providing capital to build a building and then renting it out to cover cost of that capital, maintenance and building cost is unreasonable or bad thing.

The problem is the scale of investment. For example, 3 companies own 19,000 houses, or 11% of the rental market, in the Atlanta, GA area[0]. The market is being "manipulated" in that investors with vast amounts of cash are outbidding folks trying to buy a primary residence, and by owning tens of thousands of homes, you exert a measure of control over the housing supply (i.e. "manipulation").

I don't believe that companies should have the ability to own so many houses, and the easiest way to curb this is to progressively tax investment property to the point that isn't financially feasible to own tens, let alone thousands, of homes.

0: https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/researchers-find-three-compa...

Limiting what companies can own would lead to increased demand for rental properties thus increased rents. Making the renters who are unable or willing to buy to have to pay increasing amounts of money. I do not see how that would fix housing in anyway.

I think forcing people to buy home is worse than some party owning lot of homes.

3 companies own 19,000 houses, or 11% of the rental market

11% of the single family rental market. There are 200k rental apartments in Atlanta too.

No, the easiest way to curb this is to make it easier to build homes so that supply is closer to the level of demand, not create even more policies that will reduce supply.

Controlling 11% of the rental market is not enough to manipulate it, and that's one of the most concentrated markets in the US if I remember correctly. It's not an actual issue. If those 3 companies are in fact colluding, use the existing laws against that to prosecute them instead of inventing more counterproductive policies.