[inpdx]

While I cede your point to an extent, small time landlords are generally (1) small, local businesses, giving back to the local economy, and (2) very motivated to keep the places rented rather than sit idle. Which is to say at least somewhat invested in the community.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I 100% agree, but the difference you are pointing out relates to how a landlord acts and works with the community, not how they became a landlord in the first place. There are plenty of "small time landlords" who simply inherited a house when their parents passed away and chose to keep it to rent out. The author of the article is implying we should demonize these small time landlords because they didn't "scrimp and save their earned income over decades" (even though their parents did).

[xattt]

I agree with this. Emotional investment is entangled with a generational home. You don’t want an inherited home with positive memories to turn into a drug den, so you’re incentivized to screen out unfavorable tenants.

If you’re a large-scale real estate corp, the houses are just income earners and as long as the income is greater than the n expenses, you don’t give a rats ass who lives there.

[RC_ITR]

Isn’t that just redlining with more steps?

Unless your implication is that it’s ok for some people to not have a place to live.

[aoeusnth1]

They are also incentivized to prevent housing construction and oppose any policies which would decrease their rental income.