it’s not the government’s place to own single family houses for rent

all provincial governments should have a non profit crown corporation owning all rental properties over a certain number of doors though

Why the arbitrary distinction? What's so special about the number 1 here?

There are two solutions.

1. Housing Cooperatives: https://chfcanada.coop/about-co-op-housing/
2. Community Land Trusts: https://www.communityland.ca/

Both provide people the ability to have homes without direct ownership nor dealing with the hassle of ownership nor the uncertainty of renting.

It has the benefits of owning. Control over rent prices, ability of modifying living space (including putting up pictures) and benefits of renting (allowing easy relocation, delegate maintenance responsibility).

Housing cooperatives and CLTs have the benefits of both without the drawbacks of either. It also treats housing as a human right as opposed to an "investment".

There are housing cooperatives for students, the most temporary population and the least wanting to maintain a property.

https://www.nasco.coop/

You can be a part of this movement too by donating or investing in such projects. I urge you to do so.

They work, and work well. There just needs be mass injection of funds into them.

It is most certainly the government's business providing housing for its citizens. Like we did, the state- and thereby the people (who own the fucking state), collectively owned like half of all homes in the country. Rent was dirt cheap, anything belonging to the apartment or house was the responsibility of the landlord (a communal entity) to maintain on their own buck, everyone could easily get a home, and it was considered one of the social wonders of the world.

Then the capitalists bought their way into government, sold it all, and now we have a "housing crisis".

Conservatives- they sure know how to create a good life for everyone.

If there are more than enough houses then an investment house would be a bad investment since no one would need to rent it and/or no one would want to buy it with a good profit margin. Instead, they're buying houses that people want, which is driving up home prices and letting them set high rents.

It is not an analogy. That's just math.

I'd like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.

I'll wait.

Some more scenarios:

If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won't be a good "investment".

If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.

I'd like to see this demonstrated as false.

Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.

If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you'd've increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible: [N+0], Everyone wants one home [N+I], At least one person wants an investment property

1. S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
2. S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
3. S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
4. S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
5. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
6. S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
7. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
8. S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼

There are 8 billion houses? Do you count mud huts into that?