If Chinese people just want to invest in the US real estate market, the win/win would be some kind of REIT which did rentals. SF tenant laws suck for landlords

If Chinese people just want to invest in the US real estate market, the win/win would be some kind of REIT which did rentals. SF tenant laws suck for landlords, but if you're in modern construction, rent control at least goes away, and if it's a REIT/pooled asset, you care less about individual ones. What hurts SF from a jobs perspective is the lack of 1-2BR at the $1500-3000/mo price point, not the affordability of housing. If the "SF deal" were that you could rent for 5-10y at $1500-2000/mo and have a reasonable place, make 2-3x the prevailing wage in other markets, and then buy a house in SFBA (if your equity hits) or elsewhere (if it doesn't), then that's a pretty reasonable deal. What I hate is the cost for a new person to move to SF and find reasonable housing, either solo or with a family, with time pressure, and without local connections for roommates, sublet of a rent controlled place (which happens...), etc. If I'm paying fair rent, I don't care if the check goes to a management company who pays a Chinese investor, a REIT, an earlier tech person, or someone who has owned property in SFBA since 1980s. Encouraging sale of property at market price from people who bought it in pre-boom period, to a REIT or Chinese investor directly, is also a huge win for CA on taxes (and thus for residents), due to prop 13. It also converts the asset of a nearing-retirement-age person into cash, which might be more productively deployed elsewhere (or, a late-90s buyer, who might instead choose to invest in startups). The problem is owned property being left vacant.