I did read that but it seemed pretty clear that the comment thread and the comment you were responding to were not in fact discussing one specific instance, but rather the broader phenomenon:
> these company investments ...
> If the companies ...
> Having your employer [not "having Cook"] as your landlord ...
Although given that your comment was clearly about the case study I should have made clearer that my intent was to communicate that just because Cook isn't renting the houses that the parent commenter's concerns are still valid because more companies are.
> these company investments ...
> If the companies ...
> Having your employer [not "having Cook"] as your landlord ...
Although given that your comment was clearly about the case study I should have made clearer that my intent was to communicate that just because Cook isn't renting the houses that the parent commenter's concerns are still valid because more companies are.