landlords want to say they "provide" housing, but that's not true. the housing already exists and would sit vacant if not sold. what they are "providing" is a service. a service to maintain the building. a service to improve the building to meet modern standards. a service that makes living in a home without owning it a better value than owning it yourself.
instead landlords horde housing so people have no option except to rent. then the landlords don't think they need to provide the service of being a landlord. the value of rent versus buy isn't there.
i think there is a place for landlords. i think renting is good for people who intend to live there for a year, or part time, or some long term temporary reasons and won't have time or reason to maintain the building. there is a place and reason for landlords, a service. it's a job, and when treated as a job i think its worth while.
to be clear, not everyone needs a landlord. most cases i think people should be able to and should own where they live. in dense residential zones, aparrment/condo buildings with individually owned units contributing to an owners' controlled/ran organization that maintains shared spaces are fine. yeah hiring a building manager makes sense, but that's not a landlord it is an employee. private companies running/owning the building is bad and should be illegal. single family homes, absolutely should not be owned by a corporation. that should be illegal. renting out a room or floor in your own house you live in? sure, that's acceptable. owning a whole multifamily home just to rent out the one half? no, that should be illegal.
in many cases, rent is higher than a monthly mortgage payment, but banks refuse to approve loans. so the very people paying the mortgage also pay service fees and other junk to rent the same place. which arbitrarily increase for greed reasons. People can afford the housing without landlords, but banks are gatekeeping owning a home. landlords aren't "providing" a house to people who can't get a loan, those people were discriminated against and trapped into renting. it's stealing.
Rental properties as investments for peoples homes should not be legal. maybe, maybe i can see a case for rental properties in "destination" areas, for tourists who want to rent a home for a week or so. that needs to be regulated, restricted, and zoned so people who actually live in those places full time can still afford housing. those rentals will be reduced in number to what they are currently, they will be more expensive to rent due to demand and reduced supply. that will likely price out people who want to visit and rent a house but can't afford it. that's fine, because the people who live there shouldn't need to rent and struggle for tourists.