8 ms·

Tricon CEO hoards 30000+ single family homes in US/Canada

26 points by yyzreporter 5y ago

aspenmayer 5y ago
This feels like an existential threat to the stability of the country. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Forty acres and a mule. These truths we find self-evident. Tell me another. It’s time to call the bluff. We either have the right to affordable housing, or we are beholden to the market and its participants. When the free market can’t provide a market based solution, are we to just throw up our hands and say, at least we tried? I know there are no easy answers here. What do people in the industry think the future of affordable housing looks like?
- zelon88 5y ago
  Who cares what people in the industry think affordable housing should look like. If it were up to them we would be living in storage units. Make it illegal for corporations to own single/dual family residential property. Boom. Done. End the corporate landlord. Residential property owners don't go scooping up empty factories and strip malls when the market is down.
  - genewitch 5y ago
    This, on it's face, seems like the proper way to deal with it, but what about 40 somethings that have actually struggled to buy and renovate multiple properties because "passive income, or whatever" - in order to shield themselves eventually someone is going to recommend an LLC or incorp, and handing the responsibilities of the day to day off to another, third party entity for management. Where do you draw the line? I think landlords are an archaic remnant of the past that refuses to let go. I haven't self-resolved my thoughts on whether or not it's ethical to have property you don't, yourself use. In my opinion, it's complex, ethically. Ideally we wouldn't need landlords or apartments or anything (hey 37% of the workforce in the US could "easily" work remotely! what about th) - but since they exist, I'm in agreement. "holding land" should be frowned upon.
    - zelon88 5y ago
      If the case is as you describe then get the assets back in an individual person's name and just hire a management company. The only reason you would want to hide behind an LLC is so you can avoid liability as a landlord. That is the source of so many horror stories. Dangerous, disgusting, pathetic horror stories.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      No third party management. Housing is something I am perfectly OK with requiring a landlord to be personally responsible for, and that means you can't shunt inefficiencies onto some faceless management corporations who exist as a buffer between landlords and the human beings. One perverse incentive in this market is the ability to distance yourself from the human consequences of profit based decisions. If you have to deal with it personally, and your community knows your reputation, the renter/landlord dynamic becomes a lot more civil and personal. Banks shouldn't own houses. People should.
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago
      Generally, when someone forms a LLC for managing a property, they don't pass the ownership of the property to the LLC. The LLC manages the day-to-day of dealing with tenants, maintenance, communications. But ultimately the individual person still owns the property. I think there are ways we can draw the line. We can accept that some form of property ownership is fine, even if it means that one person owns multiple properties. For example, an older couple renting out their old home after they downsized. But there needs to be a progressive tax on additional properties. Something like that by the time you own 10 properties, each additional property costs you more in taxes annually than it can ever bring in (think 500k annual tax on a property valued at 500k.) Corporate property ownership we can treat two ways -- completely eliminate it, or similarly progressively tax it, but at a much harsher rate. Like, each additional property requires 2x the taxation of the previous one. And make any attempts to circumvent this very criminal and strict liability -- like 25y/life for the executive and board levels, and no arguing that it was some underling that did it.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    Couple that with a rigorous system preventing slumlord abuses, eliminate hoas, federally standardized minimum rental rights that give both landlords and renters recourse and accountability, and a unicorn. The gotcha games allowed by local and state laws (or hoas) in many places are just bonkers.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    I agree with you. I was merely curious whether the industry insiders also saw that same writing on the wall, and didn’t want to dismiss their concerns out of hand. It’s possible that they may have insight into the concerns of current landlords. Ideally there would be a federal moratorium on new land-lording, and all current landlords would have to setup an estate plan to transition ownership to heirs for use as a primary residence if they did not already own one, and the excess could be sold at auction to those who don’t already own a primary residence, or to those who are trading up or down to another house. Not sure if that’s a great way to go about it, but it could work.
    - CapricornNoble 5y ago
      >>>all current landlords would have to setup an estate plan to transition ownership to heirs for use as a primary residence if they did not already own one, and the excess could be sold at auction to those who don’t already own a primary residence, or to those who are trading up or down to another house. My mother spent 30+ years paying off her mortgage, busting her ass to ensure that I would inherit her property free-and-clear. I'm just beginning to setup the place with a property management company, and already my projections indicate it is the #2 source of income and wealth in our family over the next 10 years (my income is #1, wife's income a VERY distant #3). Property ownership, and leveraging assets to acquire more assets, isn't used exclusively by the already-wealthy 1%. It's also used by middle-class minorities, living well within their means, to climb the ladder out of the working class and into the capitalist class. I'm finally starting to see a light at the end of the wage-slavery tunnel. My primary residence is outside the US, and I have no intention or expectation that I would ever penalize my children by forcing them to reside in the crumbling, socially-fractured dystopian hellhole of America. I would absolutely fly MYSELF back to the States, perhaps even augmented with personally-hired SE Asian "security contractors" (far more affordable than US veterans) to defend my family's assets with lethal force if someone tried to implement this insanity. "Do-gooders" and their unintended consequences really grind my gears.
      - TomVDB 5y ago
        You agree that the US is a hellhole for many people, but you don’t seem to realize that you’re part of the problem. (Note that I’m part of the problem too, by renting out our previous house so that my kid may eventually be able to live close to us, but at least I’m not a hypocrite, knowingly or not, about it.)
- Proven 5y ago
  [dead]
- walkhour 5y ago
  > We either have the right to affordable housing, or we are beholden to the market and its participants. When the free market can’t provide a market based solution, are we to just throw up our hands and say, at least we tried? What free market do you have in mind? Housing supply shortages aren't the result of a free market, they are the result of a very regulated market or simply the prohibition to build more houses. > What do people in the industry think the future of affordable housing looks like? Construction needs to keep pace with population growth and demand, which it hasn't for a long time [0]. We could expropriate those 30000+ units and sure it would feel like justice is being done but this will only be a temporary patch if demand keeps outpacing supply. And sure the government can build more units but can the government by itself make up for those 5 million needed units [1]? Note once we expropriate those 30000 units we'll only be 4.97 millions units short. [0] https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/ https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/america-is-short-more-than-5-million-homes-study-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/america-is-short-more-than-5...
spacexsucks 5y ago
All billionaire are oligarchs. Every single CEO. It is still a feudal system.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  None of them should exist. It shouldn't just be immoral to be a billionaire; It should be criminal and fatal to be one.
megablast 5y ago
If they are building new homes, that’s one thing, and not so bad.
aliswe 5y ago
While putting them out for rent. I dont understand how this is an objectively evil thing, except if you see house ownership as a human right?
- sfe22 5y ago
  Yeah, and the irony of supporting a monopoly (government) owning all the homes without incentive to improve, compared to this company that is taking a lot of risk and offering a service in the freeish market.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  As long as they put them out at a price where they're not rent-seeking, thats fine. Making significant profit from housing should be super-verboten.
- unmole 5y ago
  > I dont understand how this is an objectively evil thing Because apparently buying a house by paying more is stealing. Oh, and the Kulak billionaires should apparently be put to death.
unmole 5y ago
Does the CEO personally own them or are they owned by the company which rents them out?
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  Does it particularly matter? Either of these is downright wrong. No one person or corporation should be able to own even dozens of homes, nevermind the thousands that they currently do.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > Either of these is downright wrong. Why? Did they steal the homes? Do they evade property taxes? > No one person or corporation should be able to own even dozens of homes, nevermind the thousands that they currently do. Why should you get a say in how other people chose to deploy their money?
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago
      > Why? Did they steal the homes? Do they evade property taxes? In a way, yes. By being better capitalized, they are able to offer better offers on properties than individual buyers. You might say that this is working as intended, but I disagree. Housing should not be an investment vehicle. Are they doing anything illegal? Probably not. Are they doing something that harms society at large and can lead to civil unrest? Absolutely. > Why should you get a say in how other people chose to deploy their money? As long as the way they spend their money has zero effect on me, they can spend it however they want. As soon as they spend it on something that affects, me damned straight I'm going to voice my opinion on how they're spending it. You spend $10m to build a mansion in the boonies? Cool, enjoy your fancy house. You spend $10m, to buy up multiple properties in a city with a housing deficit to build a mansion? Go fuck yourself with a rusty railroad spike.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > In a way, yes. By being better capitalized, they are able to offer better offers on properties than individual buyers. So, paying more than other buyers is in a way stealing? Do you hear yourself? > As long as the way they spend their money has zero effect on me, they can spend it however they want. As soon as they spend it on something that affects, me damned straight I'm going to voice my opinion on how they're spending it. You are opposed to the very idea of price signals?
aaron695 5y ago
Not sure what sort of mental illness you require to hangout on that forum but it makes a good case a chunk of the population needs corporations looking after them. Tricon is publicly traded. Anyone can invest. You could put in $100 When people say they can't afford to get into property what they really mean is they only want the massive double your money wins they see in the news for free. Not the average. Anyone willing to work hard with risk on a property generally can.
sfe22 5y ago
They are a communist subreddit so I’d probably get banned from saying this there: In communism the one organization will own all homes, not just 30k of them. So if 30k is bad, how is owning everything better? This post is actually contradicting all they believe in.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  You really can't see any difference between a government (tenuously beholden to its citizens) and a corporation (beholden to no one but the shareholders, if that) owning property? Can I interest you in some new eyeglasses? You seem to be in need.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Can I interest you in a book? https://ctheory.sitehost.iu.edu/img/Hayek_The_Road_to_Serfdom.pdf https://ctheory.sitehost.iu.edu/img/Hayek_The_Road_to_Serfdo...
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago
      Sorry, the digital copy of this is rather hard to wipe my ass with unlike the paper copy. In that sense, I'd rather have a paper copy, it's more useful.
  - sfe22 5y ago
    This company is also beholden to its customers, they have to compete with other companies and individuals and can only profit if they are really good at what they do. If it is extremely profitable many others will jump on the opportunity, thus lowering prices. What incentive would a government granted monopoly have to improve? And no, a government is almost never beholden to it’s people. It automatically has power, especially communist ones. The “democratic” one also only have to convince a few groups to agree on a few topics to get full controll.
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago

26 points by yyzreporter 5y ago

This feels like an existential threat to the stability of the country. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Forty acres and a mule. These truths we find self-evident. Tell me another. It’s time to call the bluff. We either have the right to affordable housing, or we are beholden to the market and its participants. When the free market can’t provide a market based solution, are we to just throw up our hands and say, at least we tried? I know there are no easy answers here. What do people in the industry think the future of affordable housing looks like?

zelon88 5y ago
Who cares what people in the industry think affordable housing should look like. If it were up to them we would be living in storage units. Make it illegal for corporations to own single/dual family residential property. Boom. Done. End the corporate landlord. Residential property owners don't go scooping up empty factories and strip malls when the market is down.
- genewitch 5y ago
  This, on it's face, seems like the proper way to deal with it, but what about 40 somethings that have actually struggled to buy and renovate multiple properties because "passive income, or whatever" - in order to shield themselves eventually someone is going to recommend an LLC or incorp, and handing the responsibilities of the day to day off to another, third party entity for management. Where do you draw the line? I think landlords are an archaic remnant of the past that refuses to let go. I haven't self-resolved my thoughts on whether or not it's ethical to have property you don't, yourself use. In my opinion, it's complex, ethically. Ideally we wouldn't need landlords or apartments or anything (hey 37% of the workforce in the US could "easily" work remotely! what about th) - but since they exist, I'm in agreement. "holding land" should be frowned upon.
  - zelon88 5y ago
    If the case is as you describe then get the assets back in an individual person's name and just hire a management company. The only reason you would want to hide behind an LLC is so you can avoid liability as a landlord. That is the source of so many horror stories. Dangerous, disgusting, pathetic horror stories.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    No third party management. Housing is something I am perfectly OK with requiring a landlord to be personally responsible for, and that means you can't shunt inefficiencies onto some faceless management corporations who exist as a buffer between landlords and the human beings. One perverse incentive in this market is the ability to distance yourself from the human consequences of profit based decisions. If you have to deal with it personally, and your community knows your reputation, the renter/landlord dynamic becomes a lot more civil and personal. Banks shouldn't own houses. People should.
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    Generally, when someone forms a LLC for managing a property, they don't pass the ownership of the property to the LLC. The LLC manages the day-to-day of dealing with tenants, maintenance, communications. But ultimately the individual person still owns the property. I think there are ways we can draw the line. We can accept that some form of property ownership is fine, even if it means that one person owns multiple properties. For example, an older couple renting out their old home after they downsized. But there needs to be a progressive tax on additional properties. Something like that by the time you own 10 properties, each additional property costs you more in taxes annually than it can ever bring in (think 500k annual tax on a property valued at 500k.) Corporate property ownership we can treat two ways -- completely eliminate it, or similarly progressively tax it, but at a much harsher rate. Like, each additional property requires 2x the taxation of the previous one. And make any attempts to circumvent this very criminal and strict liability -- like 25y/life for the executive and board levels, and no arguing that it was some underling that did it.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Couple that with a rigorous system preventing slumlord abuses, eliminate hoas, federally standardized minimum rental rights that give both landlords and renters recourse and accountability, and a unicorn. The gotcha games allowed by local and state laws (or hoas) in many places are just bonkers.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  I agree with you. I was merely curious whether the industry insiders also saw that same writing on the wall, and didn’t want to dismiss their concerns out of hand. It’s possible that they may have insight into the concerns of current landlords. Ideally there would be a federal moratorium on new land-lording, and all current landlords would have to setup an estate plan to transition ownership to heirs for use as a primary residence if they did not already own one, and the excess could be sold at auction to those who don’t already own a primary residence, or to those who are trading up or down to another house. Not sure if that’s a great way to go about it, but it could work.
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>all current landlords would have to setup an estate plan to transition ownership to heirs for use as a primary residence if they did not already own one, and the excess could be sold at auction to those who don’t already own a primary residence, or to those who are trading up or down to another house. My mother spent 30+ years paying off her mortgage, busting her ass to ensure that I would inherit her property free-and-clear. I'm just beginning to setup the place with a property management company, and already my projections indicate it is the #2 source of income and wealth in our family over the next 10 years (my income is #1, wife's income a VERY distant #3). Property ownership, and leveraging assets to acquire more assets, isn't used exclusively by the already-wealthy 1%. It's also used by middle-class minorities, living well within their means, to climb the ladder out of the working class and into the capitalist class. I'm finally starting to see a light at the end of the wage-slavery tunnel. My primary residence is outside the US, and I have no intention or expectation that I would ever penalize my children by forcing them to reside in the crumbling, socially-fractured dystopian hellhole of America. I would absolutely fly MYSELF back to the States, perhaps even augmented with personally-hired SE Asian "security contractors" (far more affordable than US veterans) to defend my family's assets with lethal force if someone tried to implement this insanity. "Do-gooders" and their unintended consequences really grind my gears.
    - TomVDB 5y ago
      You agree that the US is a hellhole for many people, but you don’t seem to realize that you’re part of the problem. (Note that I’m part of the problem too, by renting out our previous house so that my kid may eventually be able to live close to us, but at least I’m not a hypocrite, knowingly or not, about it.)
Proven 5y ago
[dead]
walkhour 5y ago
> We either have the right to affordable housing, or we are beholden to the market and its participants. When the free market can’t provide a market based solution, are we to just throw up our hands and say, at least we tried? What free market do you have in mind? Housing supply shortages aren't the result of a free market, they are the result of a very regulated market or simply the prohibition to build more houses. > What do people in the industry think the future of affordable housing looks like? Construction needs to keep pace with population growth and demand, which it hasn't for a long time [0]. We could expropriate those 30000+ units and sure it would feel like justice is being done but this will only be a temporary patch if demand keeps outpacing supply. And sure the government can build more units but can the government by itself make up for those 5 million needed units [1]? Note once we expropriate those 30000 units we'll only be 4.97 millions units short. [0] https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced-home-construction-for-20-years/ https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/america-is-short-more-than-5-million-homes-study-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/america-is-short-more-than-5...

spacexsucks 5y ago

All billionaire are oligarchs. Every single CEO. It is still a feudal system.

genocidicbunny 5y ago
None of them should exist. It shouldn't just be immoral to be a billionaire; It should be criminal and fatal to be one.

megablast 5y ago

If they are building new homes, that’s one thing, and not so bad.

aliswe 5y ago

While putting them out for rent. I dont understand how this is an objectively evil thing, except if you see house ownership as a human right?

sfe22 5y ago
Yeah, and the irony of supporting a monopoly (government) owning all the homes without incentive to improve, compared to this company that is taking a lot of risk and offering a service in the freeish market.
genocidicbunny 5y ago
As long as they put them out at a price where they're not rent-seeking, thats fine. Making significant profit from housing should be super-verboten.
unmole 5y ago
> I dont understand how this is an objectively evil thing Because apparently buying a house by paying more is stealing. Oh, and the Kulak billionaires should apparently be put to death.

unmole 5y ago

Does the CEO personally own them or are they owned by the company which rents them out?

genocidicbunny 5y ago
Does it particularly matter? Either of these is downright wrong. No one person or corporation should be able to own even dozens of homes, nevermind the thousands that they currently do.
- unmole 5y ago
  > Either of these is downright wrong. Why? Did they steal the homes? Do they evade property taxes? > No one person or corporation should be able to own even dozens of homes, nevermind the thousands that they currently do. Why should you get a say in how other people chose to deploy their money?
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    > Why? Did they steal the homes? Do they evade property taxes? In a way, yes. By being better capitalized, they are able to offer better offers on properties than individual buyers. You might say that this is working as intended, but I disagree. Housing should not be an investment vehicle. Are they doing anything illegal? Probably not. Are they doing something that harms society at large and can lead to civil unrest? Absolutely. > Why should you get a say in how other people chose to deploy their money? As long as the way they spend their money has zero effect on me, they can spend it however they want. As soon as they spend it on something that affects, me damned straight I'm going to voice my opinion on how they're spending it. You spend $10m to build a mansion in the boonies? Cool, enjoy your fancy house. You spend $10m, to buy up multiple properties in a city with a housing deficit to build a mansion? Go fuck yourself with a rusty railroad spike.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > In a way, yes. By being better capitalized, they are able to offer better offers on properties than individual buyers. So, paying more than other buyers is in a way stealing? Do you hear yourself? > As long as the way they spend their money has zero effect on me, they can spend it however they want. As soon as they spend it on something that affects, me damned straight I'm going to voice my opinion on how they're spending it. You are opposed to the very idea of price signals?

aaron695 5y ago

Not sure what sort of mental illness you require to hangout on that forum but it makes a good case a chunk of the population needs corporations looking after them. Tricon is publicly traded. Anyone can invest. You could put in $100 When people say they can't afford to get into property what they really mean is they only want the massive double your money wins they see in the news for free. Not the average. Anyone willing to work hard with risk on a property generally can.

sfe22 5y ago

They are a communist subreddit so I’d probably get banned from saying this there: In communism the one organization will own all homes, not just 30k of them. So if 30k is bad, how is owning everything better? This post is actually contradicting all they believe in.

genocidicbunny 5y ago
You really can't see any difference between a government (tenuously beholden to its citizens) and a corporation (beholden to no one but the shareholders, if that) owning property? Can I interest you in some new eyeglasses? You seem to be in need.
- unmole 5y ago
  Can I interest you in a book? https://ctheory.sitehost.iu.edu/img/Hayek_The_Road_to_Serfdom.pdf https://ctheory.sitehost.iu.edu/img/Hayek_The_Road_to_Serfdo...
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    Sorry, the digital copy of this is rather hard to wipe my ass with unlike the paper copy. In that sense, I'd rather have a paper copy, it's more useful.
- sfe22 5y ago
  This company is also beholden to its customers, they have to compete with other companies and individuals and can only profit if they are really good at what they do. If it is extremely profitable many others will jump on the opportunity, thus lowering prices. What incentive would a government granted monopoly have to improve? And no, a government is almost never beholden to it’s people. It automatically has power, especially communist ones. The “democratic” one also only have to convince a few groups to agree on a few topics to get full controll.
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago