Without bail outs we have the potential to see many more properties bought by the largest companies, who are often far harsher on tenants then small mom-and-pop owners.
> Who would you suggest should own the property instead of landlords? Should all housing be state owned instead?
Why would state ownership be their first choice? There are obviously other, more moderate options that solve the landlord issue, such as having housing units owned by their occupants.
Landlords are out to make a profit, so renters are obviously already "paying their share" of the cost of their unit in rent. If they weren't, their landlord would be broke.
> Why single out my landlord to lose everything for choosing a different asset class than I did?
Call it "creative destruction." Like the buggy-whip makers of old, maybe he made a bad choice about what business to get into?
Buggy whips are obsolete, it doesn't matter if nobody makes more. Housing is not, and it's important to compensate people that provide it because that's very expensive.
Obviously their (perhaps new) owners, their occupants. It'd be exactly the same situation as owner-occupied housing today.
I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.
Sometimes people need to change their housing circumstances in a hurry (e.g. bad break up or bad neighbor) and negotiating two real-estate transactions would be time consuming.
In short, there are lots of good reasons people don't want the burden of being a home-owner, but still need a place to live. Someone has to own and be responsible for those places.
There's no particular guarantee that land value will continue to increase either, or that market rates for rentals will continue to increase.