You ATTOM link doesn't specify if these are actually 2nd/3rd/etc homes. Some of them are mentioned in the article as foreclosures. A good number could be houses for sale or newly built apartments or abandoned houses in bad areas. The article mentions that Baltimore has the highest rate - a city with a very high crime rate. The next two are Flint and St. Louis.
Why does it matter if the homes in the report are owned by wealthy individuals, wealthy banks, or wealthy developers? They are clearly not owned by the "poor(er)" people!
Did you forget about abandoned houses in the worst areas in making your list? And it matters because what are you going do? Don't allow apartment owners to wait for new tenants? Don't allow people to have houses for sale? Don't allow foreclosures? Force people to live in unlivable conditions in areas with a huge crime rate? Etc. None of this is even remotely realistic.
If I had all the answers I'd be desperately trying to get them implemented.
I hear some places levy an extra tax on empty residences. This is a pretty good conservative approach that puts downward pressure on rents and provides some revenue that can be used to explore other solutions to these problems.
A more extreme approach would be to seize all the abandoned housing in a "bad" area and invest heavily on improving it and the area. Fix broken infrastructure and fund emergency services. Offer the housing for free, or low cost with favorable loans. Use tax incentives to entice businesses to move in so the residents have places to work and buy things. Etc...
Is any of this remotely realistic? Perhaps not, but it can't hurt to think about it.
