No, not at all, it doesn't make any sense. The closest I can think is that you do not have a solid connection from a value system to a reason that corporations

No, not at all, it doesn't make any sense. The closest I can think is that you do not have a solid connection from a value system to a reason that corporations should not own single family homes. I don't have to agree with the value system to understand the reasoning that somebody opposes corporate SFH ownership. I disagree heartily with the value system that prioritizes homeowners over renters, and views renters as disposable. But that is the only value system that I can concieve of that has a clear and reasonable argument that corporate home ownership is bad. If you want to argue that landlords should not exist, great! If you want to argue that corporations should not exist, great! However, the particular combination that corporations should not be landlords of single family homes (but somehow multi-unit buildings is OK), has always proven to be a completely incoherent and untenable position. At least as far as I can tease out of people. My best understanding is that the superiority of homeowners in US culture is so strong that people think that corporations shouldn't be able to have a chance at making the same profits that individual homeowners do off of housing. The core problem is the profits, not who is making the profits, but nobody seems to want to admit that homeowner profits are making housing unaffordable. And I view this obsession with corporate ownership of SFH as a way of addressing the core political problem at the heart of our affordability crisis.