I agree institutional investment into homes is a big issue, and based on our current laws it will drive a lot of people into rental agreements that are unlivabl

I agree institutional investment into homes is a big issue, and based on our current laws it will drive a lot of people into rental agreements that are unlivable and for the few it'll make mortgages obscenely expensive. > This is the end game I disagree with this statement. Firstly, we will likely fix it sooner rather than later. Secondly, if it truly gets horrible, we still have one person one vote. Its not the property owner that gets the vote, its the renter that gets the vote. If you end up in a locality with 100% rentership, they will vote for rental caps, they will increase their living quality through building codes/regulation, and they will vote to remove zoning and the local politicians will follow through because there is no downside to the people in their constituency. There will still be corruption in the form of state level or federal laws to reduce local autonomy (e.g. with municipal broadband), but thats a problem we already have, and people need to learn to vote for their best long-term benefit rather than ideologically and/or their short term benefit. Even today, if you want to stop Big Real-Estate from making rentership horrible and keep making housing prices obscene, vote to remove zoning or at the least, vote for zoning that would let the market increase housing 100x. We are all kinda NIMBY regarding the short term, but need to find a way to vote against our short term best interest for the sake of our long term best interests.