I hear this argument all the time. I reject it. There are alternatives.

A "Land Contract" functions very similar to a rental, but it is a purchase agreement. You are a buyer, not a tenant. If you walk away in the first 3-5 years, it functions exactly as a rental agreement, with the only exception being that the monthly payment was fixed for the duration instead of hiked annually.

If you stay longer than this initial 3-5 year period, the agreement automatically converts to a 30 year mortgage with the same payment.

So, you take out a "land contract" on your college apartment instead of a rental agreement. You can return it to the landlord after you graduate, or stay put and gain some equity for a few years.

Why would landlords offer such an arrangement? Simple: we're providing owner-occupancy exemptions to property tax hikes. If you live in the house you are paying taxes on, you are entitled to the exemption, and pay a low rate. But If you don't live there, we're going to send your property tax rate through the fucking roof. You're going to be begging your tenants to take a land contract instead of a rental agreement.

When we do this, small-time landlords who live in one of the units of a duplex, triplex, or quadplex will be able to rent out the other units while retaining the owner-occupancy credit. They are occupying the taxed parcel; the additional units are not separately taxes. Corporate landlords won't have the same capability. Corporations may be people, but they don't have a "residence". You'll be able to rent one of these onsite-landlord units, if you really want to rent.

Imagine houses that don't cost nine and a half fortunes, because they are not considered one of the most profitable ways to invest, for the richest people in the world.

Housing doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive, whether temporary or permanent residences.

It's not about temporary living in a place not existing, it's about forbidding the ways that rich people go about making housing scarce, and corner markets.

Publicly owned apartments you can rent. No need for a landlord who just takes money. That money could go to funding public services instead.

With the current trend of 2/3rds of housing kept empty for speculation, you'd probably buy and sell a house for uni (and probably make a profit instead of spending like 200k).

And also university already requires a shit load of capital? That's kinda the whole point, so poor people are poor for a "reason".

Also it'd be simple for university residences to explode it quality and quantity without the insane competition of the landlord market.

I'd hope it was a thought commencing slogan, maybe giving people curiosity as to think:

"How could another sapient person believe something so different from my own beliefs? That person is even making it a joke, therefore they must have had it bouncing around in their brain a bunch, so they must believe it and think about it a lot. Huh, maybe there is something more to know, and think about."

I even made a comment with a small answer, to the other person, who asked like a human.

Clearly didn't work on you though.

That was a kind of aggressive way for me to express that, but, in all seriousness, the reason is that:

Being a "landlord", that is, very specifically, an "owner of houses you don't live in, but rent to people for profit", is a way to live that is inherently abusive to the people you rent to.

You have ownership of a basic good people need to survive (housing), which is effectively scarce (because it's not allowed for just anyone to build a house without incredible amounts of money, even homelessness is fairly illegal in many places), and you say to people:

"Either give me a monthly fee for me to allow you to have a roof over your head, or I'm calling the police (the only people allowed to be violent in the country) to kick you out"

It's a way of making money, where the owner doesn't do anything helpful to society, except find people who are desperate to survive, and milk them of what they make.