3 ms·

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

by unmole 5y ago

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?
      - genocidicbunny 5y ago
        > So, paying more than other buyers is in a way stealing? Do you hear yourself? When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. I have no problem with individual buyers who are intending to use the property as their primary housing competing on price. I do have a problem with institutional or investor buyers competing against those would-be-homeowners on price. Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. They _must_ be treated different. And if that means considering institutional or investment purchases in homes be considered stealing, so be it. There must be controls on such properties to ensure a more equitable (read: regardless of wealth) distribution of this specific asset type. > You are opposed to the very idea of price signals? For housing? Yes, 100% against it. Housing availability and access should _never_ depend on an individuals wealth.
        unmole 5y ago
        > When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. Literally everyone who buys a house expects it to appreciate in value. This is the reason for NIMBYism, regulatory capture and market failure. If you actually want make housing more affordable, the solution is get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build new houses. > Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. You mean like food, fuel and clothing? Housing is a basic necessity, ownership of a single family house is not.
        5y ago
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      > You spend $10m, to buy up multiple properties in a city with a housing deficit to build a mansion How is this different from buying single family home with large lot in city suffering deficit in housing?

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

by unmole 5y ago

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

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?
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago
      > So, paying more than other buyers is in a way stealing? Do you hear yourself? When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. I have no problem with individual buyers who are intending to use the property as their primary housing competing on price. I do have a problem with institutional or investor buyers competing against those would-be-homeowners on price. Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. They _must_ be treated different. And if that means considering institutional or investment purchases in homes be considered stealing, so be it. There must be controls on such properties to ensure a more equitable (read: regardless of wealth) distribution of this specific asset type. > You are opposed to the very idea of price signals? For housing? Yes, 100% against it. Housing availability and access should _never_ depend on an individuals wealth.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. Literally everyone who buys a house expects it to appreciate in value. This is the reason for NIMBYism, regulatory capture and market failure. If you actually want make housing more affordable, the solution is get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build new houses. > Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. You mean like food, fuel and clothing? Housing is a basic necessity, ownership of a single family house is not.
        5y ago
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    > You spend $10m, to buy up multiple properties in a city with a housing deficit to build a mansion How is this different from buying single family home with large lot in city suffering deficit in housing?