KevonLooney

You are assuming that market rent is not already as high as demand allows. That's not true. It is. That's the definition of market rent.

Rent depends on the rental market, but most likely yes. That's not different from now though. If you improve your rental property, you get more money from it.

You might not know this, but a mortgage being higher than the rent isn't abnormal. In the past, when interest rates were 8% and rents were lower, you lost money on a rental property for the first few years. Property is not a license to print money. It's an investment with costs and payoffs.

The property owner can pay off the mortgage early with the money. Or they can buy another place to rent out. Or diversify into other kinds of investments. No one is banned from anything.

They are paying you for the property. If you don't want that, why do you rent it out? You can't use it once they lease it from you. You're a financial owner, not a resident anymore.

Why would one more person who's interested in buying the property hurt? When you sell a home are you upset that people want to hand you money? No, because you are moving out and it's now a financial decision.

That's another benefit: you might improve the home to maximize the appraisal. That would help tenants.

Of course your property tax would be based on a higher appraisal too, so you probably wouldn't go overboard.

True, but don't underestimate the value of finding a good tenant. Most landlords would rather have a stable tenant than a few extra $100s. It costs a month or more in rent to find a new person.

Here's what you're forgetting: as a percent owner in the home you are entitled to a portion of the rent and a portion of the sale price. As you buy more, your rent goes down. You are saving money.

These are good points, but you say that you don't rent anything out. Anyone who owns property in an LLC with another person deals with issues like this. They are not insurmountable.

Yes, this would make lots of small landlords think twice about renting their property out. That's actually a good thing because they could either sell or let family stay there for free.

The point is to make people who don't want to deal with the hassle sell. People like you wouldn't be affected.

Good point. I think this process would only happen when the owner doesn't live primarily in the home. I.e. financial owners.

The real issue is vacation or short-term rentals. There would have to be minimum time limits like 3 or 6 months to avoid having a million tiny owners.

Do you have an article about this?

It's an option to buy, not a requirement for the renter.

And the landlord has already made their choice for someone else to live in the home. They are being fairly paid for the property. They can always use that money to buy another one.

Isn't that what landlords tell renters? If you don't like it, just buy another one?

How would that actually work? Co-ops work just like a corporation, you buy shares one apartment at a time. There are no options.

I feel like the record keeping in your idea and mine would be the hardest part. Basically every home that is rented out would have to be a mini corporation with shares available for purchase.