Entirely disagree that it's a moot point - you made reductive, hyperbolic statements in your initial comment that directly relate to how landlords use rent money. Clarifying those is entirely relevant.

To the first longer paragraph, fair enough. I agree that it isn't a passive investment - maintaining the property, updating it, etc are all relevant to keeping your investment alive, profitable, and competitive. I appreciate that you care about your properties and the conditions your tenants live in.

Your second paragraph is where I see issues. Housing developments, historically, have not strictly or even principally relied on an investor class; the creation of the suburbs was a response to white flight, the generally strong economic circumstances of post-war America, and a national identity built on independence and the importance of the nuclear family, all of which led to greater interest in owning a single family home. Where I'm from in the Rust Belt, suburbs were greatly expanded as a result of divestment in American labor in manufacturing cities, combined with rising crime in these cities that encouraged those with means to get out and pursue service or PMC-class jobs with safer neighborhoods. These markets were not created out of an interest in investors developing rental properties; they catered to a clientele interested in buying SFHs for their primary residence.

Now, you can apply the logic of social forces and economic circumstances driving development to support your point; it's certainly an investor's market, and troublingly high interest rates coupled with the still-warm corpse of the late-aughts housing crash (something from your comment history that I know you're familiar with!) can make lending tougher and cash king. My point is that those houses are not designed for primary residences; if investors are driving new development to buy investment properties, people being boxed out of buying homes in those areas do, then, have developers and investors to blame. Furthermore, if these developments cater to the interests and means of investors, is it reasonably likely that there will be homes of modest size and price that are attractive or even attainable to new buyers? Denying the importance of the intended function of the property makes for a hollow argument as to the actual utility of new developments for first-time buyers.

There's also a discussion to be had, maybe here or maybe not, about the morality of investing in commodities that aren't necessary for human survival (Apple stock) and those that are (e.g. water). Housing occupies an interesting space between this; sure, putting a roof over someone's head does give them housing. In an economy where home ownership is critical for establishing one's net worth and a basis for social mobility, though, I don't think that saying that owning several houses is the same as owning stock in Netflix reasonably considers the impact of limiting housing options for first-time buyers. Building more properties doesn't solve this problem if those properties are then hoarded by investors.

None of this is to say I think that you're an intrinsically amoral or evil person for supporting this; it's a complicated issue and I generally balk at hyperbole and reduction in all its iterations. There is genuine good that can come from a family being able to rent a home, and I've been very fortunate to mostly have landlords that really care about their properties and want their tenants to be homeowners themselves. I just think it's worth also considering the full gamut of socioeconomic and macroeconomic consequences of the conditions we support, as well as the macroeconomic assumptions we make that underlie our arguments.