6 ms·

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive. It's not g

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive. It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds. People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

xvedejas 7y ago
I don't think multiple-home-ownership is the driver of the housing crisis. In my neighborhood in San Francisco, most homes are either owner-occupied or being rented out by the owner that owns one other house. So are you suggesting that the problem is solved in my neighborhood?
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Yes, I'm suggesting my proposal would solve the problem in your neighborhood. If you reduce the demand for something, the price falls. My suggestion clearly reduces demand for something, thus due to the laws of economics, prices will drop.
  - xvedejas 7y ago
    The thing is, my observation is true about the broader housing market in the Bay Area. Most homes are not homes owned by individuals with multiple homes. And at worst, they're homes on the rental market, and so still help to meet housing demand. Vacant houses are such a small fraction of the housing stock, that even if all of them were full of resident owners, the price problem would still exist.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      The data suggest otherwise: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments-could-ease-the-housing-crisis https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...
      - xvedejas 7y ago
        No, the data does not suggest otherwise. I won't be surprised if Vancouver is very different from San Francisco, which has extremely low vacancy rates. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jose-san-francisco-lendingtree https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo...
        anon1m0us 7y ago
        The subtitle of that article is "But that still leaves more than 100,000 Bay Area homes empty" So, yes -- it does.
        xvedejas 7y ago
        This is a lower rate than elsewhere in the US.
        anon1m0us 7y ago
        There are fewer than 10,000 homes for sale in the SF Metro area. That means, there are 10x as many homes vacant as are for sale. If there were 10x as many homes for sale as are currently for sale, what do you think that'd do to the price of homes in the area? Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more-homes-for-sale-spelling-relief-for-buyers/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more...
      - xvedejas 7y ago
        To expand further why I think you haven't made a good argument: if high vacancy rates are the problem, and the Bay Area has especially low vacancy rates, why is the Bay Area the least affordable region in the US? High vacancy rates are obviously not the cause of the housing crisis. Maybe you can make the argument that high vacancy rates _coupled with something else_ is the problem, but you don't seem to be making that argument -- and the "something else" is probably the more important factor anyway, since SF doesn't have high vacancy rates.
dgzl 7y ago
This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.
- BlackRing 7y ago
  Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right. If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again? No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat. We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them. How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each). Isn't that a better world?
    - magduf 7y ago
      No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you? If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
      - anon1m0us 7y ago
        That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees. Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
nomnomnom01 7y ago
Not just limiting but banning people that don't live in the country more than 70% of the time from living here. We n2eed to ban foreign investment.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  If a real estate agent in Australia helps a foreign buyer buy a house in Australia, it's a $400,000 fine, iirc. We are talking about stiff penalties.
ars 7y ago
> limiting the number of houses a person can own So your plan is to outlaw ..... renting?? Why?
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  No. It's to outlaw the purchase of more than 2 pieces of real property. Renting is fine by me.
  - dresstotheleft 7y ago
    SO... the only way someone can rent a "house" is to rent a room in one that is currently occupied? There would be not SFR rentals if you limit ownership to 1.
  - jonas21 7y ago
    May I suggest you think this through a bit more carefully?
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      My ideas are well thought out. What is confusing you? I personally own many pieces of real property. This law would affect me too. I'm actually one of the wealthy who think what we are allowing to happen is wrong.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    In order to rent, you need to rent from someone. If everyone can own at most two pieces of real property, that means that at most only half the population can rent, because the property owners will live in one home, and will rent out the other (well, sure, some will rent out rooms in their primary residence). In reality, half of the population will not want to (or be able to) own two properties (and many will not even be able to own one), so you end up with a nominal amount of home ownership, a very tiny rental market, and a bunch of people who both can't afford homes and have nowhere to rent because of the aforementioned very tiny rental market.
yholio 7y ago
> People need houses to live in I'm sure very few owners of multiples houses let them empty and not rent them out so that people can live in them. Houses are expensive, even outside their speculative value, in terms of raw materials, workmanship etc. So expensive that few people can afford to buy houses with cash. If someone is paying that cash to build a house, then offering it for an affordable rent so that other people can live in them, they are providing a valuable service.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  as I posted somewhere else as well: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments-could-ease-the-housing-crisis https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments... There are lots of vacant homes. Foreign buyers are pushing their wealth to the west to protect it from their own governments. So yes, another strategy to lower housing costs is to reign in foreign ownership.

xvedejas 7y ago

I don't think multiple-home-ownership is the driver of the housing crisis. In my neighborhood in San Francisco, most homes are either owner-occupied or being rented out by the owner that owns one other house. So are you suggesting that the problem is solved in my neighborhood?

anon1m0us 7y ago
Yes, I'm suggesting my proposal would solve the problem in your neighborhood. If you reduce the demand for something, the price falls. My suggestion clearly reduces demand for something, thus due to the laws of economics, prices will drop.
- xvedejas 7y ago
  The thing is, my observation is true about the broader housing market in the Bay Area. Most homes are not homes owned by individuals with multiple homes. And at worst, they're homes on the rental market, and so still help to meet housing demand. Vacant houses are such a small fraction of the housing stock, that even if all of them were full of resident owners, the price problem would still exist.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    The data suggest otherwise: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments-could-ease-the-housing-crisis https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...
    - xvedejas 7y ago
      No, the data does not suggest otherwise. I won't be surprised if Vancouver is very different from San Francisco, which has extremely low vacancy rates. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jose-san-francisco-lendingtree https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo...
      - anon1m0us 7y ago
        The subtitle of that article is "But that still leaves more than 100,000 Bay Area homes empty" So, yes -- it does.
        xvedejas 7y ago
        This is a lower rate than elsewhere in the US.
        anon1m0us 7y ago
        There are fewer than 10,000 homes for sale in the SF Metro area. That means, there are 10x as many homes vacant as are for sale. If there were 10x as many homes for sale as are currently for sale, what do you think that'd do to the price of homes in the area? Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more-homes-for-sale-spelling-relief-for-buyers/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more...
    - xvedejas 7y ago
      To expand further why I think you haven't made a good argument: if high vacancy rates are the problem, and the Bay Area has especially low vacancy rates, why is the Bay Area the least affordable region in the US? High vacancy rates are obviously not the cause of the housing crisis. Maybe you can make the argument that high vacancy rates _coupled with something else_ is the problem, but you don't seem to be making that argument -- and the "something else" is probably the more important factor anyway, since SF doesn't have high vacancy rates.

dgzl 7y ago

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

BlackRing 7y ago
Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right. If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again? No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat. We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them. How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each). Isn't that a better world?
  - magduf 7y ago
    No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you? If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees. Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.

nomnomnom01 7y ago

Not just limiting but banning people that don't live in the country more than 70% of the time from living here. We n2eed to ban foreign investment.

anon1m0us 7y ago
If a real estate agent in Australia helps a foreign buyer buy a house in Australia, it's a $400,000 fine, iirc. We are talking about stiff penalties.

ars 7y ago

> limiting the number of houses a person can own So your plan is to outlaw ..... renting?? Why?

anon1m0us 7y ago
No. It's to outlaw the purchase of more than 2 pieces of real property. Renting is fine by me.
- dresstotheleft 7y ago
  SO... the only way someone can rent a "house" is to rent a room in one that is currently occupied? There would be not SFR rentals if you limit ownership to 1.
- jonas21 7y ago
  May I suggest you think this through a bit more carefully?
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    My ideas are well thought out. What is confusing you? I personally own many pieces of real property. This law would affect me too. I'm actually one of the wealthy who think what we are allowing to happen is wrong.
- kelnos 7y ago
  In order to rent, you need to rent from someone. If everyone can own at most two pieces of real property, that means that at most only half the population can rent, because the property owners will live in one home, and will rent out the other (well, sure, some will rent out rooms in their primary residence). In reality, half of the population will not want to (or be able to) own two properties (and many will not even be able to own one), so you end up with a nominal amount of home ownership, a very tiny rental market, and a bunch of people who both can't afford homes and have nowhere to rent because of the aforementioned very tiny rental market.

yholio 7y ago

> People need houses to live in I'm sure very few owners of multiples houses let them empty and not rent them out so that people can live in them. Houses are expensive, even outside their speculative value, in terms of raw materials, workmanship etc. So expensive that few people can afford to buy houses with cash. If someone is paying that cash to build a house, then offering it for an affordable rent so that other people can live in them, they are providing a valuable service.

anon1m0us 7y ago
as I posted somewhere else as well: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments-could-ease-the-housing-crisis https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments... There are lots of vacant homes. Foreign buyers are pushing their wealth to the west to protect it from their own governments. So yes, another strategy to lower housing costs is to reign in foreign ownership.