I'm not finding this argument particularly compelling. I definitely understand that rentals can be profit seeking tools that are harmful (ex: slum lords) - but

I'm not finding this argument particularly compelling. I definitely understand that rentals can be profit seeking tools that are harmful (ex: slum lords) - but I don't think removing the ability to rent actually solves that problem. If you can't rent - there are wide swathes of my city that just wouldn't be developed at all. It would remain the private estate of the family that owned it. Instead those plots are sold or developed into apartments/condos/townhomes. Basically - land is a revenue generating asset. If rent is illegal, folks will use it for the next best revenue they can make. They won't just suddenly dump it on the market for sale. Further - renting can be a valuable tool. I moved very often right out of school seeking to live as close as possible to my current job. That was insanely helpful to me, and not something that would be financially feasible if I had to purchase and re-sell for each (near-yearly) move - even if the house I was buying only cost 100k, and not 500k. --- Basically - I understand the sentiment, but I think this argument glosses over far too many likely consequences of removing the ability to rent (ex - I promise you you'll just end up with a lot of company towns where "Room & board" is free, but only if you work the company job.)