5 ms·

>> The Gotham Gal and I buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side This is not Fred Wilson's fault, and I don't target Fred for it - it is the fault o

>> The Gotham Gal and I buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side This is not Fred Wilson's fault, and I don't target Fred for it - it is the fault of society in general, but I hate it that people "buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side". I'm assuming he means residential. Rich people have no idea how it feels to be a renter when you want to own, but prices have been driven out of th bounds of possibility by people who can afford to "buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side ". It's awful that society has divided into landlords and renters. And landlords/rich people really have no empathy - they're in their own lives and feeling good about how many houses they own. Government and society in general has completely failed by allowed housing to become a financial instrument instead of a modest/normal capitalist market as it was in the 1970s. In any such discussion you'll notice those who attack this line of thinking are ALWAYS house owners .... ALWAYS. These are the people who feel that any regulated fairness in housing is communism - that's because they are on the happy side of the housing equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Dream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Dream "The Australian Dream or Great Australian Dream is, in its narrowest sense, a belief that in Australia, home ownership can lead to a better life and is an expression of success and security. The term is derived from the American Dream, which first described the same phenomenon in the United States, starting in the 1940s." Owning a house used to be "the great Australian (American) dream". And now it's not. Now it's what rich people do many times over in a giant game of monopoly. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesrealestatecouncil/2021/09/28/homeownership-and-the-american-dream/?sh=68d84f9723b5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesrealestatecouncil/2021/09... https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/realestate/in-the-nation-why-owning-a-home-is-the-american-dream.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/realestate/in-the-nation-...

sokoloff 4y ago
I think it's clear that rental properties should exist, because however much it sucks that some people can't buy a property to live in, it would suck a lot harder if the only way to live somewhere was to buy it. If rental properties should exist, who should own them? If renting of housing by private owners is banned, that's a small inconvenience for people who might be combining households (each partner lived apart initially and now want to move in together) or when otherwise taking a temporary assignment somewhere with the intention to return, but that's not the bulk of rental property pretty obviously. I think the greater challenge is that prospective home buyers are competing against other prospective home buyers. All else being equal, people earning a 25th percentile income and having a 25th percentile savings are going to lose out in a competitive bidding situation to people with a 26th percentile income and savings.
- andrewstuart 4y ago
  Not sure how you came to think I said rental should not exist. I think governments should regulate to ensure housing markets are fair, with a primary goal of ensuring people who want to own a house can buy one. I fundamentally believe that it should be within the means of anyone who wants to own a house to have one. That means firefighters, kindergarten teachers, garbage collection workers, receptionists, old and young people - all those people who frankly have zero chance right now. Governments should use they tools they have to discourage monopoly style property hoarding. Housing should not be used at hotel rooms - I disagree with the cored concept of AirBNB because residential housing should be for the ordinary lives of citizens,m not for investors to make money from travel holidays. Things like AirBNB distort the market. I am against residential housing being sold to non citizens/permanent residents.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Who would own these rentals if not the landlords/rich?
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Rather than worry about hoarding, what if it was just easier to build more of it? Look at zoning in SF bay area. Or Sydney.
    - andrewstuart 4y ago
      Ahhh, the old "supply is the solution!" response. "More supply will solve insane pricing!" is what governments and property investors like to say. It sure sounds plausible - sounds like market economics doesn't it..... if there's so much of something on the market that supply outstrips demand then prices MUST go down, right? Seems like a ridiculous idea to me that so many houses will be built that prices will crash down to the level that anyone can buy them. In fact I think what happens when there is more supply is that investors buy more houses to put renters into. It will never happen that so many houses will be built that they become so cheap that the pricing will crash. Property developers love to say "more supply!" because it makes them more money, that's all - they know more supply will never drives prices down so much that anyone could afford a house.
draw_down 4y ago
chasebank 4y ago
Rental property will always exist. We need to completely ban nightly rentals. If you want to operate a hotel, build and operate a hotel. If a community was built to operate with nightly rentals, like, say, Sun River, OR, then perhaps they can zone appropriately for nightly rentals. Pseudo hotels should not be operating in traditional neighborhoods.
- michpoch 4y ago
  So instead of having a residential building with Airbnbs inside you'll now have a hotel. How does that solve the issue? If there's X number of people who need an overnight stay in the city and you want to accommodate them - what difference it makes if they stay in residential studios or hotel rooms?
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
If nobody is building real estate, how do prices do anything but go up? From a supply side perspective, real estate has always been about financials. Everyone is trying to make money. Zoning rules make it harder to build more... and hence there isn't more...
- andrewstuart 4y ago
  You must be the house owner somehow reading into my comments as "no-one should build real estate".
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    >> but I hate it that people "buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side" Just reading.
    - andrewstuart 4y ago
      Yeah that isn't me saying "no-one should build real estate".
  - cossatot 4y ago
    Your exact quote was I hate it that people "buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side". Their interpretation of your comments is quite straightforward.
GenericDev 4y ago
Preach it brother/sister. Everyone is out here treating real estate as an investment and inserting themselves pointless middle-people extracting capital from those who are blocked from entering the housing market or even scaling their living situation to match their family requirements. It's incredibly depressing to see comments like yours considered "wrong" and in the minority and even more so vociferously defended against in the name of "small-business owners" or the "capitalism IS fair" crowd. Despite those who succeeded being a survivorship bias group. Housing is a right, and should not be an investment. To invest in housing alienates its purpose which is stability and shelter. It creates an antagonistic lens in which its ownership is held, not for those housed and protected by it, but those who wish to squeeze as much blood from the stone it has become.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Housing is a right, If we accept that as true, then let the state build minimal housing for those who cannot afford shelter. TBH, that still won't take away the buy-to-rent investors, because people will still want better housing than the state provides.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    The state/city could nationalize apartment blocks easily and and provide cheap or free housing to those who want it (not means tested, you want somewhere to live but don't want to deal with a landlord? Here's your state housing). This will provide a floor for landlords to compete against and keep prices down.
    - GenericDev 4y ago
      +1
    - michpoch 4y ago
      The state/city could nationalize cars from car rental companies easily and and provide cheap or free cars to those who want it The state/city could nationalize restaurants easily and and provide cheap or free food to those who want it The state/city could nationalize Apple easily and and provide cheap or free iPhones to those who want it Seems like we found the solution /s
jcheng 4y ago
What you're saying resonates with me intuitively and anecdotally, but it's hard to square with the historical overall US homeownership rate, which peaked right before the Great Recession: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Is there other data available that supports your view?

sokoloff 4y ago

I think it's clear that rental properties should exist, because however much it sucks that some people can't buy a property to live in, it would suck a lot harder if the only way to live somewhere was to buy it. If rental properties should exist, who should own them? If renting of housing by private owners is banned, that's a small inconvenience for people who might be combining households (each partner lived apart initially and now want to move in together) or when otherwise taking a temporary assignment somewhere with the intention to return, but that's not the bulk of rental property pretty obviously. I think the greater challenge is that prospective home buyers are competing against other prospective home buyers. All else being equal, people earning a 25th percentile income and having a 25th percentile savings are going to lose out in a competitive bidding situation to people with a 26th percentile income and savings.

andrewstuart 4y ago
Not sure how you came to think I said rental should not exist. I think governments should regulate to ensure housing markets are fair, with a primary goal of ensuring people who want to own a house can buy one. I fundamentally believe that it should be within the means of anyone who wants to own a house to have one. That means firefighters, kindergarten teachers, garbage collection workers, receptionists, old and young people - all those people who frankly have zero chance right now. Governments should use they tools they have to discourage monopoly style property hoarding. Housing should not be used at hotel rooms - I disagree with the cored concept of AirBNB because residential housing should be for the ordinary lives of citizens,m not for investors to make money from travel holidays. Things like AirBNB distort the market. I am against residential housing being sold to non citizens/permanent residents.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Who would own these rentals if not the landlords/rich?
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Rather than worry about hoarding, what if it was just easier to build more of it? Look at zoning in SF bay area. Or Sydney.
  - andrewstuart 4y ago
    Ahhh, the old "supply is the solution!" response. "More supply will solve insane pricing!" is what governments and property investors like to say. It sure sounds plausible - sounds like market economics doesn't it..... if there's so much of something on the market that supply outstrips demand then prices MUST go down, right? Seems like a ridiculous idea to me that so many houses will be built that prices will crash down to the level that anyone can buy them. In fact I think what happens when there is more supply is that investors buy more houses to put renters into. It will never happen that so many houses will be built that they become so cheap that the pricing will crash. Property developers love to say "more supply!" because it makes them more money, that's all - they know more supply will never drives prices down so much that anyone could afford a house.

draw_down 4y ago

chasebank 4y ago

Rental property will always exist. We need to completely ban nightly rentals. If you want to operate a hotel, build and operate a hotel. If a community was built to operate with nightly rentals, like, say, Sun River, OR, then perhaps they can zone appropriately for nightly rentals. Pseudo hotels should not be operating in traditional neighborhoods.

michpoch 4y ago
So instead of having a residential building with Airbnbs inside you'll now have a hotel. How does that solve the issue? If there's X number of people who need an overnight stay in the city and you want to accommodate them - what difference it makes if they stay in residential studios or hotel rooms?

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

If nobody is building real estate, how do prices do anything but go up? From a supply side perspective, real estate has always been about financials. Everyone is trying to make money. Zoning rules make it harder to build more... and hence there isn't more...

andrewstuart 4y ago
You must be the house owner somehow reading into my comments as "no-one should build real estate".
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  >> but I hate it that people "buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side" Just reading.
  - andrewstuart 4y ago
    Yeah that isn't me saying "no-one should build real estate".
- cossatot 4y ago
  Your exact quote was I hate it that people "buy and build a fair bit of real estate on the side". Their interpretation of your comments is quite straightforward.

GenericDev 4y ago

Preach it brother/sister. Everyone is out here treating real estate as an investment and inserting themselves pointless middle-people extracting capital from those who are blocked from entering the housing market or even scaling their living situation to match their family requirements. It's incredibly depressing to see comments like yours considered "wrong" and in the minority and even more so vociferously defended against in the name of "small-business owners" or the "capitalism IS fair" crowd. Despite those who succeeded being a survivorship bias group. Housing is a right, and should not be an investment. To invest in housing alienates its purpose which is stability and shelter. It creates an antagonistic lens in which its ownership is held, not for those housed and protected by it, but those who wish to squeeze as much blood from the stone it has become.

lelanthran 4y ago
> Housing is a right, If we accept that as true, then let the state build minimal housing for those who cannot afford shelter. TBH, that still won't take away the buy-to-rent investors, because people will still want better housing than the state provides.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  The state/city could nationalize apartment blocks easily and and provide cheap or free housing to those who want it (not means tested, you want somewhere to live but don't want to deal with a landlord? Here's your state housing). This will provide a floor for landlords to compete against and keep prices down.
  - GenericDev 4y ago
    +1
  - michpoch 4y ago
    The state/city could nationalize cars from car rental companies easily and and provide cheap or free cars to those who want it The state/city could nationalize restaurants easily and and provide cheap or free food to those who want it The state/city could nationalize Apple easily and and provide cheap or free iPhones to those who want it Seems like we found the solution /s

jcheng 4y ago

What you're saying resonates with me intuitively and anecdotally, but it's hard to square with the historical overall US homeownership rate, which peaked right before the Great Recession: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Is there other data available that supports your view?