"Mom-and-pop investors, or those who own between 1 and 5 homes, account for 85% of all investor-owned residential properties, while those with between 6 and 10 properties account for another 5%

Institutional investors that own 1,000 or more homes account for only about 2.2% of all investor-owned homes, the firm said.

And that number could get smaller, amid signs that large institutional investors are scaling back home purchases.

Out of a group of eight of the biggest companies that own and lease single-family houses, including Invitation Homes and American Homes 4 Rent, six sold more homes in the second quarter than they bought, according to data from Parcl Labs."

Exactly why would single family homes receive this odd policy preference? Is the only reason that you couldn't do it at all with multifamily housing (the vast, overwhelming majority of which aren't co-ops, themselves corporations but not the kind you mean)? In which case all you're really doing here is flailing?

Except the builders who build them right? And the banks that lend against them? And the quasi governmental corporations who buy those loans?

If you want to make it so no homes get built at all your proposal seems like a good starting point.

Making it so no homes get built is a surprisingly common policy preference.