2 ms·

I don't necessarily disagree, but I have been thinking about what it would take to hypothetically limit the ability for people to buy multiple properties within

I don't necessarily disagree, but I have been thinking about what it would take to hypothetically limit the ability for people to buy multiple properties within some geographical boundary, or even put some pressure on low density owners in that geographical boundary while the cost of housing/vacancy rates are within some extremely scarce range. It's a naive thought atm, but I would be curious if everyone basically had only one slot for residential ownership in the metro area of the city, how much could regional demand actually push prices? For example, is it even remotely reasonable as a society to allow extremely wealthy people to own two or more condos in Toronto, when the minimum cost to get any condo is 3/4 of a million and salaries not remotely keeping pace? Is it unreasonable to settle on a definition of excess being that of the multiple residential property owner? Likewise for consideration towards residential property development companies. Maybe it's possible to own a lot of land specifically designated for development, but not for just holding more than one or a few properties.

svachalek 5y ago
I don't think it's possible with all the shell corporations and other gimmicks the rich use. It's just too easy to conceal who owns what. I think simply removing all the market restrictions that make homes such a valuable investment would do it, when demand meets supply suddenly housing markets start to look like any other market. But this seems to be politically unthinkable just about everywhere.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  I think there's a difference between completely impossible, and partially very difficult. If reasonably well-off people can pretty easily leverage low-interest rates and take control over property that otherwise wouldn't have as much competition, then that's probably a bad thing. The super rich will always figure out a way if it's lucrative enough, but those actions would stand out more if it was generally unacceptable. As it stands, I don't even know how to track down data on how many people own multiple properties. Likewise, you can't possibly out-pace multiple property ownership with supply in a desirable place unless you exhaust the excess capital available to wealthy people and ban low-density zoning codes and maybe even ban surface-level parking lots. In my neighbourhood, lots of wealthy homeowners have signs up decrying the construction of a sky-scraper that's sort of vaguely near the edge of their neighbourhood, which is currently occupied by a parking lot. The effect it would theoretically have, is adding to the available housing supply in the area for people currently renting at absurd rates because it's impossible to buy anything. It would take away rental income from people who already leveraged themselves too much, and marginally decrease demand for their scarce commodity known as a place to live.
- jjav 5y ago
  > I don't think it's possible with all the shell corporations and other gimmicks the rich use. If there was the political will to do it, it would be very easy. Just pass a law that every residential property must be owned by real people with their names on the title.

svachalek 5y ago

I don't think it's possible with all the shell corporations and other gimmicks the rich use. It's just too easy to conceal who owns what. I think simply removing all the market restrictions that make homes such a valuable investment would do it, when demand meets supply suddenly housing markets start to look like any other market. But this seems to be politically unthinkable just about everywhere.

brailsafe 5y ago
I think there's a difference between completely impossible, and partially very difficult. If reasonably well-off people can pretty easily leverage low-interest rates and take control over property that otherwise wouldn't have as much competition, then that's probably a bad thing. The super rich will always figure out a way if it's lucrative enough, but those actions would stand out more if it was generally unacceptable. As it stands, I don't even know how to track down data on how many people own multiple properties. Likewise, you can't possibly out-pace multiple property ownership with supply in a desirable place unless you exhaust the excess capital available to wealthy people and ban low-density zoning codes and maybe even ban surface-level parking lots. In my neighbourhood, lots of wealthy homeowners have signs up decrying the construction of a sky-scraper that's sort of vaguely near the edge of their neighbourhood, which is currently occupied by a parking lot. The effect it would theoretically have, is adding to the available housing supply in the area for people currently renting at absurd rates because it's impossible to buy anything. It would take away rental income from people who already leveraged themselves too much, and marginally decrease demand for their scarce commodity known as a place to live.
jjav 5y ago
> I don't think it's possible with all the shell corporations and other gimmicks the rich use. If there was the political will to do it, it would be very easy. Just pass a law that every residential property must be owned by real people with their names on the title.