U.S. News

I think the biggest issue here is the corporations purchasing these homes in bulk. Had these been owned as, say, someone's second home, they would naturally care more for the property as the property would be a lot more personal to the owner. Individual owners with only one or two properties for rent also have significantly less power in controlling the market as they would be forced to compete with each other. Corporations owning sizable percentages of the homes in an area can essentially set their own prices, especially since they can afford to buy properties well above market rate from individual owners looking to sell.

As someone who knows people who are small landlords in the area, it has become a very toxic place for both renters and individual landlords. At least one of the people I know is at the point of packing up and leaving the state because of how bad it is to own and rent there. While giving renters these additional rights is a step in the right direction against corporate landlords, I think it would honestly be better to find a way to disincentivize people/companies from owning so many properties in the first place so that more individual ownership can happen. Imagine if people in the city actually owned their homes.