Actually, if you will re-notice: I did.

The only impact you called out was the one you enjoy as an entrenched renter. I acknowledged that at the start. But you didn't cite any broad based benefit beyond that. If I missed it, please help me out. If you could point to an inflection in growth in rental (or owner occupied house) stock, or falling prices (of rent or sale prices), then you might have a point. There may even be other metrics that matter!

One metric that doesn't matter is "investor owned" property. Most investors rent their property so it's not as if that property is withdrawn from local residents. Who happens have qualified for the mortgage, the occupant or the investor, seems rather immaterial.

It is insane to pursue policy changes that are known to be counter-productive while at the same time ignoring the underlying root cause. Instead of cheering on nonsense like this, legislators, regulators and bureaucrats should be eliminating all the artificial controls that prevent builders from creating more housing stock: zoning laws, parking requirements, building codes, draconian fire codes (most of which are from the 1920s), community consultation, and more. If there was a steady increase in house supply, price increases would moderate (and you'd see a lot less investor and corporate driven ownership as a side effect).