[imtringued]

>2. If landlords didn't buy up properties for the purposes of turning around and renting them, the property values would be lower because there wouldn't be as much demand on the market.

Why would there be less demand on the market? What you are saying is that without landlords there is an absence of properties that people want to live in. How else does the land lord increase demand? By buying units that he never intends to rent out? That type of owner is no longer a landlord, merely an investor.

>Then a decent portion of the people you're talking about not being able to afford to live there ... would be able to afford to live there.

They would be able to afford to live there because nobody else wants to live there? What? How is that supposed to be a good thing?

I honestly can't grasp the hate of landlords. It literally makes zero sense. Rent seeking is bad but all land owners engage in it. Landlords have at least some incentive to make scarce land available to as much people as possible. All the other types of owners would rather make as little land available to as few people as possible. That is truly perverse and should be punished with a land value tax (the landlord would have to pay it as well but he doesn't care, as he would still make money off of the improvement of the land, not the land itself).