4 ms·

1. Residential homes are no longer allowed to be 'investment properties' aka every person(or married couple) can own exactly one house. Corporate entities exce

by tempfs 5y ago

1. Residential homes are no longer allowed to be 'investment properties' aka every person(or married couple) can own exactly one house. Corporate entities except for Banks(even then can only own it for the time it takes to sell it in the case of foreclosure) can't either. 2. Only actual Americans can own property in America. Single-fam, multi-fam, land,etc. doesn't matter. Exactly no one needs to rent houses if mulit-fam exists and actual houses aren't speculative instruments or places where foreign nationals hide their money.

JamesBarney 5y ago
1. Just bans people from renting houses to other people. This reduces the supply of rentable houses to 0. Reduces the supply of rentable stock in general. And very slightly marginally reduces the price of houses. 2. Can corporations still own commercial property? And can foreigners own corporations ?
lastofthemojito 5y ago
Even "simple" solutions like those you've proposed so often wind up having unintended consequences. For your first proposal, I wonder about folks buying a house through an LLC or trust as folks often do to protect their privacy. Are we banning that? I also wonder about inheritance - if I own a house and my parents die, leaving me their house, how long do I have to sell one to be "in compliance?". Maybe their house needs work and I'd like to spend a few months or a year fixing it up to maximize what it'll sell for. Is that ok? And speaking of timing - I remember during the wave of foreclosures after the last housing bubble, banks kept a lot of houses off the market for a while to moderate prices, rather than listing everything at once and panicking the market further. Seems like banks ought to have some leeway to maximize their return (e.g. if a house has a pool and is foreclosed on in the late fall, maybe they judge that waiting until spring would get a better response from buyers).
jakemoshenko 5y ago
Where do you expect rental housing stock to come from in this scenario?
simonsarris 5y ago
Doesn't that sound insane from a mile away? By the time you are done making exceptions, you'll have infinity carve outs. This is not a solution so much as a way to squish the problem into a different, weirder shape. 1. Everyone is forced to sell their lakehouses, cabins, ADUs? Detached mother-in-laws? (wtf is "Exactly one house?") No one is ever able to rent a single family home ever again? Right now 14.5 million households / 44 million residents rent single-family homes in the United States. They're... out of luck? On the street? Gotta save for a down payment? If those houses are force-sold, don't you think people-other-than-the-current-inhabitants will come in and buy them? Actually, can anyone ever rent ever again? Or is it a buy-vs-homeless dichotomy here? Or do towns have to become miniature companies and play landlord? Or states? 2. Timber companies are forced to give up their land, bankrupting all of them and driving the cost of wood sky high. Mobile home land must now be sold, except no one can buy it. Farms except for sole proprietors are forced to give up their land (sorry partnerships, amish, people with discontiguous lots, and everyone who wants to eat this year, you're out of luck) IMO you should focus on laws that let people build more (eg, ADUs, duplexing) rather than getting out the stick and hoping there won't be huge side effects.
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  We already have waaaaaay more empty houses than homeless people, so that seems like kind of a huge side effect from speculation / investment that is terrible for normal people. Can someone answer why any developer would ever create low income housing when margins on luxury condos / McMansions are so high? Neoliberal capitalism is totally failing at efficiently providing housing to anyone other than the rich, but sure, lets just keep sucking up to developers
- amrocha 5y ago
  You know public housing is a thing right? You don't need to rent from the private market, that's just how it is right now
leetcrew 5y ago
> Exactly no one needs to rent houses if mulit-fam exists and actual houses aren't speculative instruments or places where foreign nationals hide their money. okay, but what if I have (an opportunity for) positive cashflow, minimal savings, and want to move away from my parents' house? does it just suck to be me or what?
swiley 5y ago
There are good reasons to be a renter, it’s hard enough getting an apartment in the time between accepting a job offer and your start date, I couldn’t imagine hunting for a house/condo in that time.
ch4s3 5y ago
Who builds new homes if builders can't own them pre-sale? I imagine you have a carve out for that, but who qualifies as a builder? What about people who want to live in cities? How do they come together to build say a small condo building? Do we only allow co-ops? How is that financed? When you say "Americans", do you only mean citizens or permanent residents? Where do temporary residents live? How do people move to new cities/states? Where will the new housing come from?

by tempfs 5y ago

JamesBarney 5y ago

1. Just bans people from renting houses to other people. This reduces the supply of rentable houses to 0. Reduces the supply of rentable stock in general. And very slightly marginally reduces the price of houses. 2. Can corporations still own commercial property? And can foreigners own corporations ?

lastofthemojito 5y ago

Even "simple" solutions like those you've proposed so often wind up having unintended consequences. For your first proposal, I wonder about folks buying a house through an LLC or trust as folks often do to protect their privacy. Are we banning that? I also wonder about inheritance - if I own a house and my parents die, leaving me their house, how long do I have to sell one to be "in compliance?". Maybe their house needs work and I'd like to spend a few months or a year fixing it up to maximize what it'll sell for. Is that ok? And speaking of timing - I remember during the wave of foreclosures after the last housing bubble, banks kept a lot of houses off the market for a while to moderate prices, rather than listing everything at once and panicking the market further. Seems like banks ought to have some leeway to maximize their return (e.g. if a house has a pool and is foreclosed on in the late fall, maybe they judge that waiting until spring would get a better response from buyers).

jakemoshenko 5y ago

Where do you expect rental housing stock to come from in this scenario?

simonsarris 5y ago

Doesn't that sound insane from a mile away? By the time you are done making exceptions, you'll have infinity carve outs. This is not a solution so much as a way to squish the problem into a different, weirder shape. 1. Everyone is forced to sell their lakehouses, cabins, ADUs? Detached mother-in-laws? (wtf is "Exactly one house?") No one is ever able to rent a single family home ever again? Right now 14.5 million households / 44 million residents rent single-family homes in the United States. They're... out of luck? On the street? Gotta save for a down payment? If those houses are force-sold, don't you think people-other-than-the-current-inhabitants will come in and buy them? Actually, can anyone ever rent ever again? Or is it a buy-vs-homeless dichotomy here? Or do towns have to become miniature companies and play landlord? Or states? 2. Timber companies are forced to give up their land, bankrupting all of them and driving the cost of wood sky high. Mobile home land must now be sold, except no one can buy it. Farms except for sole proprietors are forced to give up their land (sorry partnerships, amish, people with discontiguous lots, and everyone who wants to eat this year, you're out of luck) IMO you should focus on laws that let people build more (eg, ADUs, duplexing) rather than getting out the stick and hoping there won't be huge side effects.

toiletfuneral 5y ago
We already have waaaaaay more empty houses than homeless people, so that seems like kind of a huge side effect from speculation / investment that is terrible for normal people. Can someone answer why any developer would ever create low income housing when margins on luxury condos / McMansions are so high? Neoliberal capitalism is totally failing at efficiently providing housing to anyone other than the rich, but sure, lets just keep sucking up to developers
amrocha 5y ago
You know public housing is a thing right? You don't need to rent from the private market, that's just how it is right now

leetcrew 5y ago

> Exactly no one needs to rent houses if mulit-fam exists and actual houses aren't speculative instruments or places where foreign nationals hide their money. okay, but what if I have (an opportunity for) positive cashflow, minimal savings, and want to move away from my parents' house? does it just suck to be me or what?

swiley 5y ago

There are good reasons to be a renter, it’s hard enough getting an apartment in the time between accepting a job offer and your start date, I couldn’t imagine hunting for a house/condo in that time.

ch4s3 5y ago

Who builds new homes if builders can't own them pre-sale? I imagine you have a carve out for that, but who qualifies as a builder? What about people who want to live in cities? How do they come together to build say a small condo building? Do we only allow co-ops? How is that financed? When you say "Americans", do you only mean citizens or permanent residents? Where do temporary residents live? How do people move to new cities/states? Where will the new housing come from?