4 ms·

Investors owning real estate has done more to move prices up than permits. Investors buy a quarter of all stock and have an incentive to lobby for keeping supp

Investors owning real estate has done more to move prices up than permits. Investors buy a quarter of all stock and have an incentive to lobby for keeping supply low. The solution is more government regulation reducing the number of units big investors can own, building small public housing units throughout their cities (not big projects), and making investing in property less appealing for big players via rent control, landlord tenant laws, zoning up, etc.

cuteboy19 4y ago
Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store? So therefore, won't big players be able to be cheaper than smaller ones? So then what is the logic behind stopping big investors? Also don't understand the thought process behind not having big government projects
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Big projects are considerably more specialized to maintain. You don't just need a guy with a pressure washer, you need someone who can get a whole rig hanging over the edge of the building. The plumbing, elevators, fire suppression, trash collection, heating and cooling, and electrical systems require specialists. They also centralize poverty, which has effects on the local area. The workers in those buildings need to travel all over for their work. Small, two to four story apartment buildings can largely be managed by handymen. They can be distributed throughout a city, placing them in communities that can support them. The people who live there can work in their local communities. Beyond that, their initial capital costs are lower, and it's easier to find land that is zoned for 4 story buildings than 40 story buildings. > Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store? Cheaper? Maybe. Better? Absolutely not. Amazon might save me a couple bucks, but the hassle and time dealing with quality control issues, poorly managed inventory, lack of local experience, etc makes the dollars I save disappear I into increased headaches. The thought of renting a home from Amazon vs the local bookstore is nightmarish to me.
- joe-collins 4y ago
  Amazon is forced to compete on price because electronics supply is flexible. People can find other retailers. Even if every regulation was struck from the books tomorrow, housing supply doesn't have anywhere close to the same flexibility. It's limited by the availability of undeveloped (or redevelopable) land, and just as importantly, by the location of that land. You can't just create more land next to the metropolis of your preference. There are practical and physical limits.
  - astrange 4y ago
    You can create more houses on the same land with technology called "taller buildings", mass timber construction, single stair apartment reforms, upzoning, &c. The above comment saying corporate investors lobby for reducing supply isn't true though. It's individual old NIMBYs and small time developers who lobby for that. Big companies like BlackRock are passively investing because it's so easy when the local government already wants to help them by restricting supply, but they don't individually show up to city council meetings and lobby for this stuff. You really can defeat them by showing up. No California YIMBY policy has lost someone an election yet.
    - joe-collins 4y ago
      You're quite right! If only so much of the viable, desirable land wasn't already occupied.
      - astrange 4y ago
        Many of the people currently occupying it would be happy to sell it to you so you could do infill development and they could move to Hawaii! It's just illegal to do it now. (Or they could stay in place - California requires this to be possible through "right of return" laws.)
esoterica 4y ago
Forcing people to pay $3000/month in rent to a small time mom and pop landlord instead of $3000/month to a REIT (owned by the 401ks of those exact same small time landlords) does nothing for either housing affordability or equity. The main political force behind restricting housing supply is incumbent homeowners, not large investors. Many types of housing are simply not feasible to build and operate except by large investors (e.g large apartment buildings), and banning entire categories of in-demand housing artificially restricts supply and drives prices up. Imagine if we banned CPUs built by large corporations. Do you think that would make CPUs cheaper or cause massive shortages and drive prices up?

cuteboy19 4y ago

Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store? So therefore, won't big players be able to be cheaper than smaller ones? So then what is the logic behind stopping big investors? Also don't understand the thought process behind not having big government projects

socialismisok 4y ago
Big projects are considerably more specialized to maintain. You don't just need a guy with a pressure washer, you need someone who can get a whole rig hanging over the edge of the building. The plumbing, elevators, fire suppression, trash collection, heating and cooling, and electrical systems require specialists. They also centralize poverty, which has effects on the local area. The workers in those buildings need to travel all over for their work. Small, two to four story apartment buildings can largely be managed by handymen. They can be distributed throughout a city, placing them in communities that can support them. The people who live there can work in their local communities. Beyond that, their initial capital costs are lower, and it's easier to find land that is zoned for 4 story buildings than 40 story buildings. > Isn't Amazon cheaper than your local electronics store? Cheaper? Maybe. Better? Absolutely not. Amazon might save me a couple bucks, but the hassle and time dealing with quality control issues, poorly managed inventory, lack of local experience, etc makes the dollars I save disappear I into increased headaches. The thought of renting a home from Amazon vs the local bookstore is nightmarish to me.
joe-collins 4y ago
Amazon is forced to compete on price because electronics supply is flexible. People can find other retailers. Even if every regulation was struck from the books tomorrow, housing supply doesn't have anywhere close to the same flexibility. It's limited by the availability of undeveloped (or redevelopable) land, and just as importantly, by the location of that land. You can't just create more land next to the metropolis of your preference. There are practical and physical limits.
- astrange 4y ago
  You can create more houses on the same land with technology called "taller buildings", mass timber construction, single stair apartment reforms, upzoning, &c. The above comment saying corporate investors lobby for reducing supply isn't true though. It's individual old NIMBYs and small time developers who lobby for that. Big companies like BlackRock are passively investing because it's so easy when the local government already wants to help them by restricting supply, but they don't individually show up to city council meetings and lobby for this stuff. You really can defeat them by showing up. No California YIMBY policy has lost someone an election yet.
  - joe-collins 4y ago
    You're quite right! If only so much of the viable, desirable land wasn't already occupied.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Many of the people currently occupying it would be happy to sell it to you so you could do infill development and they could move to Hawaii! It's just illegal to do it now. (Or they could stay in place - California requires this to be possible through "right of return" laws.)

esoterica 4y ago

Forcing people to pay $3000/month in rent to a small time mom and pop landlord instead of $3000/month to a REIT (owned by the 401ks of those exact same small time landlords) does nothing for either housing affordability or equity. The main political force behind restricting housing supply is incumbent homeowners, not large investors. Many types of housing are simply not feasible to build and operate except by large investors (e.g large apartment buildings), and banning entire categories of in-demand housing artificially restricts supply and drives prices up. Imagine if we banned CPUs built by large corporations. Do you think that would make CPUs cheaper or cause massive shortages and drive prices up?