Re-read the article. No one is saying they're the same number, John... but anyone can see it's simply a matter of scale in extrapolation.

I only come at this from a moral perspective: Is it right for someone to own two houses if it makes shelter less affordable for the less-well-off? The moral answer is clearly no. That is good enough for moral people to vote for a ban on multiple house ownership.

But democracy should make a decision. Maybe it's a reasonable limit of one-second-house-for-a-relative as you're suggesting, maybe it's a moral limit of one as I'm suggesting, maybe it's three, maybe it's unlimited. I'd just love every human being to have one vote and see where we stand. (I suspect the vast majority of the world would favor some sort of cap, and total banning of corporate money.)

Also: For-profit land-lording is morally wrong, but let's not get into that. ;)