I have no argument really in favor of corporate ownership, but I don't find the arguments against convincing in terms of helping normal people.

Rental housing is an important part of housing, and giving access to the schools in suburbs through rental opportunities seems good to me. The people I know who have rented a SFH in my area have had better experiences with corporate landlords than home-owning landlords because the home-owning landlords frequently evict their tenants so that a relative can move in, which is super disruptive. California allows homeowners to evict people with very little warning that way, without cause. Corporations can't do that and also follow the law better.

As far as investing: Every home owner treats it as their primary asset. Which is the only reason that corporations are getting in on the game: people living in their own homes have changed regulatory structures so much that it's rigged in favor of owners.

Single family homes owed by corporations are rented out to people to live in them, giving access to neighborhoods that were not accessible before.

If you think that's "economist inspired" well it's no more inspired than your statements!