8 ms·

My position: 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this). Ownership is a barrier. Rental properties are useful. If there are

by cletus 5y ago

My position: 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this). Ownership is a barrier. Rental properties are useful. If there are no landlords there are no rentals unless you want the government to be your landlord. Nobody wants that; 2. Investment funds should not be landlords. Landlords should be local to the area. Likewise, no one entity should be allowed to have too much beneficial ownership of housing stock in any one area; 3. Real estate has special treatment for asset reporting. This needs to end; 4. If you own real estate in NYC, for example, then the city and state should deem you a resident of that state for tax purposes and tax you accordingly; 5. Properties without a clear beneficial owner (eg owned through layers of LLCs) should be taxed punitively in property taxes. You can have your anonymity if you really care but it's going to cost you; 6. Residents of trailer parks and mobile home parks should have the right to collectively purchase that park. There is a quite frankly disgusting effort by investors to buy up these properties and then extort the poor people who live on them (eg [1]). This shit needs to be illegal; and 5. This protection should extend to apartment buildings too. This is essentially the origin of the cooperative ("coop") in NYC. Today, coops still account for ~80% of apartments in Manhattan. People have in the last 100+ years gravitated to cities for employment. Cities have a lot of advantages. But this has constrained supply of suitable housing stock artificially. There is a lot of cheap housing in the US still but not where it's useful. My hope is that the pandemic is a catalyst for a change that will allow people to move away from a few urban centers. Having more medium-sized cities in various regions is generally better for everyone. [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/15/what-happens-when-investment-firms-acquire-trailer-parks https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/15/what-happens-w...

namdnay 5y ago
(6) - what do you mean by “should have the right”? Anyone has the right to buy a trailer park, including The residents.
- cletus 5y ago
  I mean if a sufficient number of residents support it, they can forcibly purchase the land or building they're sharing as a cooperative. Of course, they should pay market rates for it. Think of it as a private application of eminent domain. As far as I'm concerned, the rights of people to live in the homes they technically own without being extorted by a REIT who owns the land those houses sits on trumps property "rights" of REITs. Worldwide this sort of thing does happen. Example: the UK system of leasehold/freehold.
- oflannabhra 5y ago
  Guessing GP means “have the option to buy”, regardless if the current owner is selling.
superfunny 5y ago
For point (4), people who live out of state still have to pay property taxes on the property they own in another state.
- cletus 5y ago
  That's true. Typically that property tax rate is higher for out-of-state residents too. I'm suggesting going further than that: owning property in that place makes you a tax resident. That means all your income is subject to state and city taxes. You'd still get credit for taxes paid in other states (as you do now for the most part) so you don't get double-taxed. But let's stop giving tax breaks to people who reside in Monaco for tax (ie no tax) purposes and park their money in real estate in London, SF, Vancouver, NYC and Hong Kong.
civilized 5y ago
> 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this). I am so baffled by this. Seems like a mental smokescreen for NIMBY homeowners to protect themselves from the realization that they are the problem. If every landlord was murdered today and replaced with a homeowner, there would not be the slightest impact on either the home price crisis or its root cause, the artificial restriction in supply caused by NIMBY zoning and regulations. In fact, the supply pinch would probably get worse. Big landlords can benefit from expanded supply if they own that expanded supply. Single-home homeowners see only the risk of disruption to their environment. A city full of single-home homeowners might never build anything, anywhere, ever again. (Just in case anyone asks, I am not a landlord. I'd have to be a multi-millionaire to even contemplate it in my area.)
- dzikimarian 5y ago
  Living in EU. Please tell me what should I do with my money, so I won't starve when I'm on pension in 20-30 years? Current situation is, that my lifetime savings are being eaten by inflation due to rising wave of social benefits given to everyone in exchange for votes. Real estate is virtually only option, that does not require additional part-time work, in order to turn profit beating inflation.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Why not Vanguard Total Market Index? That's what my 401(k) is in. The stock market is overvalued and risky but so is real estate. I'm sure there are still lots of better-than-nothing companies to invest in. You want to put money into things that are going to be making money in the future. Real estate is one, but businesses are another.
    - dzikimarian 5y ago
      I have some ETFs/stock too. However: * lack of diversification seems unwise. * volatility and risk seem to me to be higher on a stock market. * taxation is approx twice higher on capital gains. Costs of investing on more mature markets, than local markets are not helping too. * my children will need a place at some point. Giving them some option seems to be wise, given what's happening to real estate market (I see some irony in that statement, but when in Rome...) In general I would much prefer to not deal with real estate, but it simply would mean a lot bigger risk of a few unpleasant decades at the end of life.
danaris 5y ago
> 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this). Ownership is a barrier. Rental properties are useful. This is circular. A big part of the reason ownership is a barrier is that landlords—usually large corporate ones—own all the available properties in an area, and have exactly zero intention of selling individual units. This, of course, raises prices.
- cletus 5y ago
  There are two big problems with your statement: 1. You ignore the big problem that buying a house shouldn't be the only way of finding somewhere to live. Like, that's just not realistic. You're 18 and you want to move out of your parents' house. Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? 2. The idea that a market can be cornered like this is overly simplistic and history is littered with the bodies of those that have tried. Like anything, the pendulum swings back and forth on this. You only have to go back to 2008 to a time when the market was flooded with available units. What you have now is people who 100% have legitimate concerns that I support but tend to overstate the doom and gloom as being forever. Obviously that doesn't help them now but the idea that someone can forever lock people out of the housing market just doesn't hold water. Structural changes in the market will come along and change the equilibrium. IMHO one of the most damaging things to the housing market has actually been AirBnB.
  - danaris 5y ago
    > Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? Why shouldn't there be houses—or apartments—you can afford to buy while working at Dairy Queen?
    - civilized 5y ago
      Because NIMBY homeowners would prevent the construction of sufficient supply to drive prices to that level of affordability.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    People are so fixed with the models of what has happened and won’t even consider what could be done. You know you could buy a home with 0% down. The government could back the loans and have very low interest rates on these loans. It’s all possible - but we’re stuck in such a strong capitalistic mindset that we ignore other possible ways of running the country and imagining home purchases. There’s also no reason we couldn’t have the government building beautiful and delightful buildings that are also attainable for everyday workers. It’s because we are stuck in our capitalistic mindset and so anti-government that we cannot imagine other ways of doing things.
PontiacParade 5y ago
Great write up. I hold the same view but hadn't written it out in such a way. Thanks!

by cletus 5y ago

namdnay 5y ago

(6) - what do you mean by “should have the right”? Anyone has the right to buy a trailer park, including The residents.

cletus 5y ago
I mean if a sufficient number of residents support it, they can forcibly purchase the land or building they're sharing as a cooperative. Of course, they should pay market rates for it. Think of it as a private application of eminent domain. As far as I'm concerned, the rights of people to live in the homes they technically own without being extorted by a REIT who owns the land those houses sits on trumps property "rights" of REITs. Worldwide this sort of thing does happen. Example: the UK system of leasehold/freehold.
oflannabhra 5y ago
Guessing GP means “have the option to buy”, regardless if the current owner is selling.

superfunny 5y ago

For point (4), people who live out of state still have to pay property taxes on the property they own in another state.

cletus 5y ago
That's true. Typically that property tax rate is higher for out-of-state residents too. I'm suggesting going further than that: owning property in that place makes you a tax resident. That means all your income is subject to state and city taxes. You'd still get credit for taxes paid in other states (as you do now for the most part) so you don't get double-taxed. But let's stop giving tax breaks to people who reside in Monaco for tax (ie no tax) purposes and park their money in real estate in London, SF, Vancouver, NYC and Hong Kong.

civilized 5y ago

> 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this). I am so baffled by this. Seems like a mental smokescreen for NIMBY homeowners to protect themselves from the realization that they are the problem. If every landlord was murdered today and replaced with a homeowner, there would not be the slightest impact on either the home price crisis or its root cause, the artificial restriction in supply caused by NIMBY zoning and regulations. In fact, the supply pinch would probably get worse. Big landlords can benefit from expanded supply if they own that expanded supply. Single-home homeowners see only the risk of disruption to their environment. A city full of single-home homeowners might never build anything, anywhere, ever again. (Just in case anyone asks, I am not a landlord. I'd have to be a multi-millionaire to even contemplate it in my area.)

dzikimarian 5y ago
Living in EU. Please tell me what should I do with my money, so I won't starve when I'm on pension in 20-30 years? Current situation is, that my lifetime savings are being eaten by inflation due to rising wave of social benefits given to everyone in exchange for votes. Real estate is virtually only option, that does not require additional part-time work, in order to turn profit beating inflation.
- civilized 5y ago
  Why not Vanguard Total Market Index? That's what my 401(k) is in. The stock market is overvalued and risky but so is real estate. I'm sure there are still lots of better-than-nothing companies to invest in. You want to put money into things that are going to be making money in the future. Real estate is one, but businesses are another.
  - dzikimarian 5y ago
    I have some ETFs/stock too. However: * lack of diversification seems unwise. * volatility and risk seem to me to be higher on a stock market. * taxation is approx twice higher on capital gains. Costs of investing on more mature markets, than local markets are not helping too. * my children will need a place at some point. Giving them some option seems to be wise, given what's happening to real estate market (I see some irony in that statement, but when in Rome...) In general I would much prefer to not deal with real estate, but it simply would mean a lot bigger risk of a few unpleasant decades at the end of life.

danaris 5y ago

> 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this). Ownership is a barrier. Rental properties are useful. This is circular. A big part of the reason ownership is a barrier is that landlords—usually large corporate ones—own all the available properties in an area, and have exactly zero intention of selling individual units. This, of course, raises prices.

cletus 5y ago
There are two big problems with your statement: 1. You ignore the big problem that buying a house shouldn't be the only way of finding somewhere to live. Like, that's just not realistic. You're 18 and you want to move out of your parents' house. Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? 2. The idea that a market can be cornered like this is overly simplistic and history is littered with the bodies of those that have tried. Like anything, the pendulum swings back and forth on this. You only have to go back to 2008 to a time when the market was flooded with available units. What you have now is people who 100% have legitimate concerns that I support but tend to overstate the doom and gloom as being forever. Obviously that doesn't help them now but the idea that someone can forever lock people out of the housing market just doesn't hold water. Structural changes in the market will come along and change the equilibrium. IMHO one of the most damaging things to the housing market has actually been AirBnB.
- danaris 5y ago
  > Is your only option really to buy a house while working at Dairy Queen? Why shouldn't there be houses—or apartments—you can afford to buy while working at Dairy Queen?
  - civilized 5y ago
    Because NIMBY homeowners would prevent the construction of sufficient supply to drive prices to that level of affordability.
- bradlys 5y ago
  People are so fixed with the models of what has happened and won’t even consider what could be done. You know you could buy a home with 0% down. The government could back the loans and have very low interest rates on these loans. It’s all possible - but we’re stuck in such a strong capitalistic mindset that we ignore other possible ways of running the country and imagining home purchases. There’s also no reason we couldn’t have the government building beautiful and delightful buildings that are also attainable for everyday workers. It’s because we are stuck in our capitalistic mindset and so anti-government that we cannot imagine other ways of doing things.

PontiacParade 5y ago

Great write up. I hold the same view but hadn't written it out in such a way. Thanks!