4 ms·

Because renting doesn't make you that much money and you have to work for it. Just leaving it sitting there and selling it later is no effort profit

conanbatt 8y ago
But its the exact opposite. Rental is generally profitable. You can bet on land while also renting and making extra money. You can't argue that they are greedy for buying land but not greedy enough to squeeze more money out of it. The answer is somewhere else.
- refurb 8y ago
  In places with rent control, having a tenant reduces the value of the home. Sometime substantially if their rent is locked at a low rate. It’s not unusual to buy tenants out in SF before putting the home on the market. Spend $50k to get them to leave and the value of the home goes up $200k. If you know you’re going to sell in a few years, basically the value of the rent (adjusting for buyout) is way less than the incremental profit from selling an empty building.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Then the problem is rent control, and the solution is not to tax empty homes.
    - ramshorns 8y ago
      Rent control is the solution to a different problem. Without it, landlords have the power to make people homeless.
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        Didn't know rent-control people harbored the homeless.
    - em500 8y ago
      It can also happen without rent control but due to other pro-tenant laws. For instance, in some countries landlords cannot terminate the rental contract unless the tenant is in serious arrears. This depresses the market value of a rented house, as the buyer can't live in in his newly purchased house if it's already rented out.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Because renting it is extra work and extra risk. You have to deal with finding someone to rent it to and then you have to keep inspecting the house to make sure they haven't wrecked it and then you have to fix any issues they report. Where as buying and selling later is very low maintenance.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    You can delegate the entire administration, include insurance, and its free money.

conanbatt 8y ago

But its the exact opposite. Rental is generally profitable. You can bet on land while also renting and making extra money. You can't argue that they are greedy for buying land but not greedy enough to squeeze more money out of it. The answer is somewhere else.

refurb 8y ago
In places with rent control, having a tenant reduces the value of the home. Sometime substantially if their rent is locked at a low rate. It’s not unusual to buy tenants out in SF before putting the home on the market. Spend $50k to get them to leave and the value of the home goes up $200k. If you know you’re going to sell in a few years, basically the value of the rent (adjusting for buyout) is way less than the incremental profit from selling an empty building.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Then the problem is rent control, and the solution is not to tax empty homes.
  - ramshorns 8y ago
    Rent control is the solution to a different problem. Without it, landlords have the power to make people homeless.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      Didn't know rent-control people harbored the homeless.
  - em500 8y ago
    It can also happen without rent control but due to other pro-tenant laws. For instance, in some countries landlords cannot terminate the rental contract unless the tenant is in serious arrears. This depresses the market value of a rented house, as the buyer can't live in in his newly purchased house if it's already rented out.
baroffoos 8y ago
Because renting it is extra work and extra risk. You have to deal with finding someone to rent it to and then you have to keep inspecting the house to make sure they haven't wrecked it and then you have to fix any issues they report. Where as buying and selling later is very low maintenance.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  You can delegate the entire administration, include insurance, and its free money.