I can kind of follow, kind of not. It would be nice to know what the main point is.
I regard housing-to-rent-out owners as just another business, albeit a business that can take a significant part of a worker’s income. If the worker has several options on choosing where to live, it’s hard to claim that there is a lack of competitiveness to create a situation where the landlord can just increase the rent to whatever the worker is able to pay; i.e. the worker no longer has any disposable income.
And owning these rentier places requires a lot of money to build, maintain, and operate. It is very unlikely that a renter can get a place for a lot cheaper than it costs to operate the place.
To me, the free market solves the problem sooner or later. For example, it is difficult for average wage earners to live on their own in Vancouver. But if they want the amenities Vancouver offers, that is the choice they have to make. Rents are much cheaper in my home town of Brooks, Alberta — and average wage earners could put more money in their bank account. But if one chooses Vancouver over Brooks, that person is making a choice.
True it is that governments try to intervene in housing markets, and usually there are some ramifications five or ten years down the road that cause additional problems.
Allow constructors to build more rentier places. They will decide if it worth their investment to build these places. Just make sure renters have choices. Let the free market sort things out while ensuring there is sufficient competition.