3 ms·

I am all in favor, and beg for a bill, that would simply declare that publicly-owned, publicly-traded companies may not legally possess housing, unless they bui

I am all in favor, and beg for a bill, that would simply declare that publicly-owned, publicly-traded companies may not legally possess housing, unless they built it themselves. Manage, yes; own, no. Never going to happen though.

Retric 4y ago
It’s mostly local voters that are the issue not companies. Good luck trying to lower property prices. This is a case of what’s good for the country is rarely good for the people making these choices. People living outside a county don’t decide their policies are but still suffer from them.
- brazed_blotch 4y ago
  You have written “it’s” instead of “its” on the last two occurrences of the word. It should be without the apostrophe, as it’s indicating possession. I used to get this wrong all the time too.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
WalterBright 4y ago
That's not going to fix anything.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  I dunno; a lot more house purchases are being bought as investments now, rather than places to live, than ever before. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    They're rented out to people who will live in them.
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      Yes. And? The thread is about people buying houses, not people affording rent.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I was replying to "rather than places to live".
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    It's only an investment because somebody is willing to pay rent to cover the mortgage the purchaser paid and supply profit to the owner. If there are no renters willing to rent then nobody is able to profit. Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      >> It's only an investment because somebody is willing to pay rent to cover the mortgage the purchaser paid and supply profit to the owner. If there are no renters willing to rent then nobody is able to profit. Not true; if housing prices continue to increase, then even without rent it becomes a reasonable investment. But that's just it; people need a place to live, so with housing becoming harder to purchase due to higher competition, more people end up renting, becoming this negative feedback loop. >> Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them. So local government and zoning can be part of the issue, sure, but again, 1/4 of the homes sold in the past year were to institutional investors looking to rent them out. Those homes -could- have gone to a family; instead they became rental units. Relevant when we are talking about home ownership. As to fiscal policy, I sort of agree with you, but not quite. It's less fiscal policy (after all, both a potential homeowner and a business can float a loan), but the scale at play. An investment company can get millions loaned out to them just by dint of being a business with cashflow, and so can pay well over appraisal. Homeowners can't; the loan there is made on the basis of the property as collateral. That innately means they're not competing on a fair footing.

Retric 4y ago

It’s mostly local voters that are the issue not companies. Good luck trying to lower property prices. This is a case of what’s good for the country is rarely good for the people making these choices. People living outside a county don’t decide their policies are but still suffer from them.

brazed_blotch 4y ago
You have written “it’s” instead of “its” on the last two occurrences of the word. It should be without the apostrophe, as it’s indicating possession. I used to get this wrong all the time too.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

That's not going to fix anything.

lostcolony 4y ago
I dunno; a lot more house purchases are being bought as investments now, rather than places to live, than ever before. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
- WalterBright 4y ago
  They're rented out to people who will live in them.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    Yes. And? The thread is about people buying houses, not people affording rent.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I was replying to "rather than places to live".
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  It's only an investment because somebody is willing to pay rent to cover the mortgage the purchaser paid and supply profit to the owner. If there are no renters willing to rent then nobody is able to profit. Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    >> It's only an investment because somebody is willing to pay rent to cover the mortgage the purchaser paid and supply profit to the owner. If there are no renters willing to rent then nobody is able to profit. Not true; if housing prices continue to increase, then even without rent it becomes a reasonable investment. But that's just it; people need a place to live, so with housing becoming harder to purchase due to higher competition, more people end up renting, becoming this negative feedback loop. >> Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them. So local government and zoning can be part of the issue, sure, but again, 1/4 of the homes sold in the past year were to institutional investors looking to rent them out. Those homes -could- have gone to a family; instead they became rental units. Relevant when we are talking about home ownership. As to fiscal policy, I sort of agree with you, but not quite. It's less fiscal policy (after all, both a potential homeowner and a business can float a loan), but the scale at play. An investment company can get millions loaned out to them just by dint of being a business with cashflow, and so can pay well over appraisal. Homeowners can't; the loan there is made on the basis of the property as collateral. That innately means they're not competing on a fair footing.