It's not absurd because nobody is forcing that person to rent. Housing is a public resource, and contributing to that public resource shouldn't come without asterisks.
Cities need the non-owning class to function, and cities function better when the non-owning class has some degree of stability-- letting landlords juice their tenants for as much as possible is counterproductive to this.
But if it becomes unprofitable (for some value of profit) to rent, they will stop renting, unless you force them at gunpoint to continue renting even when it loses money.
The tenant almost by definition can't afford (if they could afford to own where they rent, they'd likely own).
(Sadly, when you see "rent to own" on houses, they're almost always a scam preying on poor people. The trick is to get them to pay MORE than fair market rent for an "option" to buy that you know they'll never be able to execute on, or if they can, said execution is in your favor. If you care for more details, https://johntreed.com/products/sisgle is worth the price, as it details exactly WHEN an investor can make money buying these "lease options" and how they're usually unprofitable and almost scammy.)
It does naturally occur in some cases - long term tenant who is comfortable renting is offered the house "off market" when the landlord decides he's done and wants to retire from the hassle of property management and sometimes is even willing to take back a mortgage (a great way to convert a rental income stream to a financial interest scheme and remove the property maintenance factor).
Cities need the non-owning class to function, and cities function better when the non-owning class has some degree of stability-- letting landlords juice their tenants for as much as possible is counterproductive to this.