Not OP nor a tax-lawyer, but I think they meant that the federal tax code changed so that:

1. It became was more-expensive for individuals to own a house, especially in areas with high local property taxes. (Losing the ability to deduct those payments from their personal federal income bill.)

2. Taxes on corporate profits went down in general, and some portion of those corporations may be in the business of buying housing and then renting them out. (Since companies are taxed on profit rather than income, they already pseudo-deduct property taxes and other expenses.)

That said, those two items don't feel like, er, "two ends of the same see-saw" to me, especially given how #2 is very broad.

Yes, relatively, the lever that municipalities had to encourage owner occupied properties (a homestead exemption) is taken away for upper middle class (especially if a married couple each has a tech salary, and if the state has even a low income tax rate)

Therefore, it becomes beneficial for the (even the same individuals) to invest in corporations that rent out real estate; and removes the ability for the city to use homestead exemptions to help discriminate to encourage owner occupied units.

So you get higher home prices/rents with fewer owner occupied properties, with less incentive for community investment (including property taxes), and fewer levers for the state/municipality to pull.