3 ms·

I say a loud "I don't care!". 1) Put a law that prevents people from owning more than one rental house 2) Watch the market price of real estate fall tremendou

I say a loud "I don't care!". 1) Put a law that prevents people from owning more than one rental house 2) Watch the market price of real estate fall tremendously (good!!) 3) At that point it will become economically feasible for people like me to buy a condo in the Bay Area, like it should be: housing is a primary need, more so in a high cost of living area OR 1) Put a law that caps the maximum amount of rent you can charge to people, based on the bottom quartile of income for an area, or something like that 2) Watch the market price of real estate fall tremendously (good!!) I am sure my reasoning has tons of blind spots and it's probably "economically immature", but I don't care. I see rich people around me hoarding multiple multi-million dollar homes and starving the rental market, while they sit on property taxes significantly smaller than my rent. They are not providing a service to society, they are benefitting from wild speculation at the expense of other people. It shouldn't be allowed to do that, it's basic logic.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dangus 7y ago
Rent controls constrict supply, exacerbating the problem. Disallowing multiple unit ownership effectively bans landlords entirely. It’s an extreme solution that would be ridiculously disruptive. It would be impossible to find anything to rent short or long term. It would be impossible to find medium to large size condo or apartment buildings as they’d essentially be illegal, which wouldn’t help the bay area’s single family home issue. It would make single family homes nearly the only practical choice. Without vacant properties owned by a real estate company there’s no way to move anywhere unless you’re doing a 1:1 trade with a homeowner or constructing a new house (try finding a vacant lot in San Francisco). You’re glossing over the actual solution: more housing supply. Eliminating zoning restrictions dictating single family detached homes and parking minimums would cause the Bay Area market to naturally become more dense. Homeowners would sell their homes at inflated prices to developers who would build condo buildings and towers. Having developers build luxury apartments and condos seems bad, but it frees up housing stock and increases supply. Usually, yesterday’s luxury apartments and condos are today’s affordable housing. Another point that you’re missing is that the Bay Area is an outlier. Few other American cities have these housing problems. If you live in Chicago or Houston or Indianapolis and you’re holding down a half decent job you can own a house if you want that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dangus 7y ago

Rent controls constrict supply, exacerbating the problem. Disallowing multiple unit ownership effectively bans landlords entirely. It’s an extreme solution that would be ridiculously disruptive. It would be impossible to find anything to rent short or long term. It would be impossible to find medium to large size condo or apartment buildings as they’d essentially be illegal, which wouldn’t help the bay area’s single family home issue. It would make single family homes nearly the only practical choice. Without vacant properties owned by a real estate company there’s no way to move anywhere unless you’re doing a 1:1 trade with a homeowner or constructing a new house (try finding a vacant lot in San Francisco). You’re glossing over the actual solution: more housing supply. Eliminating zoning restrictions dictating single family detached homes and parking minimums would cause the Bay Area market to naturally become more dense. Homeowners would sell their homes at inflated prices to developers who would build condo buildings and towers. Having developers build luxury apartments and condos seems bad, but it frees up housing stock and increases supply. Usually, yesterday’s luxury apartments and condos are today’s affordable housing. Another point that you’re missing is that the Bay Area is an outlier. Few other American cities have these housing problems. If you live in Chicago or Houston or Indianapolis and you’re holding down a half decent job you can own a house if you want that.