This is a good point, the motives for first party corporate housing in an inexpensive area without severe supply restrictions are going to be completely differe

This is a good point, the motives for first party corporate housing in an inexpensive area without severe supply restrictions are going to be completely different than in an expensive area with those restrictions. I still think it’s possible for it to be a win-win and solve a collective inaction problem. When a business wants to expand in a rural area, it may create an acute housing shortage which the market would only eventually address, and it requires each individual developer or buyer to go through the process of finding new housing. If the business knows it’s gonna need a 100 new homes they might as well start the process asap, and I don’t mind if they get rewarded for doing so as it incentivizes job creation and housing construction. In the scenario where it’s not nefarious and just a smart win-win, it reminds me how Japanese rail recoups its costs by purchasing/developing land adjacent to stations. It’s just a smart way of capturing externalities from an economically beneficial endeavor, which reduces costs/increase the incentive for the good thing. I support it