Housing Should Be for People, Not Portfolios

People I know, good people, working hard – are trying to buy their first home. They’ve done everything right. But they’re struggling to compete.

I showed them how easily I could disadvantage them. I already own a home. I have equity. I have access to financing. If I wanted to buy another house and rent it out, I could outbid them with barely any effort. That’s not just unfair – it’s broken.

Recently, someone four hours away bought a single-family home here. They weren’t moving in. They weren’t part of the community. They were just buying low and listing it high – $2,800/month rent for a house that would cost about $1,700/month to own.

That’s a $1,100 monthly penalty for not owning. $12,000 a year drained from a family’s budget. Money that could’ve gone to savings, equity, or their kids. And the landlord? They’re not improving the home. They’re not even nearby. They’re just collecting.

Statistics Canada shows that about 1 in 5 single-family homes are investor-owned, and investors disproportionately target the cheapest homes, the very ones that first-time buyers could afford.

If politicians were serious about fixing this, they’d act.

We need policy that says: homes are for people to live in, not just profit from.

• Cap the number of single-family homes that can be rented in each area—say, 5–10%.
• Create quotas that grow only if housing supply grows.
• Make ownership transparent. No more hiding behind numbered companies.

Would this force more homes to be built? Maybe. Good. We need more homes—but not more investor portfolios.

This isn’t about punishing landlords. It’s about protecting communities. Shelter shouldn’t be someone else’s passive income stream while working families get squeezed out.

Housing should be a home—not a hustle.