Microeconomically speaking, it's good for the real estate investors. It's probably bad for most of the transfer payment recipients, because I suspect the increase is due more to lack of alternatives rather than an increase in government "generosity" (for lack of a less politically-charged word).
Macroeconomically speaking, I think it's all bad because of both the "haves vs. have-nots" aspect and because neither transfer payments nor rentals, beyond some minimum, provide additional net "product" to the economy. (Some minimum amount of transfer payments are beneficial because they prevent some temporary issue from snowballing and destroying a person's long-term productive potential, and some minimum amount of rental housing is beneficial because it allows people to be transient and flexible. If you go much beyond the minimums, however, the marginal benefit diminishes.)