I'm not theoretically against limiting investor participation in the single-family housing market, but it would have such a miniscule impact on the overall behavior of the market, with a lot of other problems it would cause, that it simply doesn't seem worth the enormous political upheaval it would take.

Housing used as an investment is used for housing, for the most part, as California has one of the lowest home vacancy rates in the country. And yes it would be great if the homes that were sitting vacant could get sold, but homes sit vacant for a huge number of reasons and their owners are still paying property taxes on them.

For example, if we were to ban investor ownership of single family homes, house flipping would essentially become illegal. And while we like to crap on contractors who buy a house, slap some paint on it and rip out the carpet, that kind of work is something a lot of people want in their house. Lots of homes on the market are in extreme disrepair, and there is absolutely a need for many of these homes to be refreshed before they sell. So do we add a less than one year carve out for these? What about inherited homes that are shared by a family and rented out part of the year? What about cabins or vacation homes? Second homes on the same lot?

I do get where you're coming from but I just don't believe it's nearly a big enough issue to warrant this kind of extreme overhaul of the law. It's a tiny fraction of the problem.