3 ms·

I mean, if corporate landlords legally were not allowed to own them, then supply would absolutely skyrocket as homes flood the market. Potentially to the point

I mean, if corporate landlords legally were not allowed to own them, then supply would absolutely skyrocket as homes flood the market. Potentially to the point where they worth pennies on the dollar, as otherwise wealthy individuals would also be reaching the 2-3 home cap (with home prices so low, why not!) Of course, this would also decimate the entire sector as a store of wealth, which, while some may consider that good (and I am partial to the view that a home is first a place to live than an investment), in the short term it would definitely have the effect of wiping out most middle class wealth, which is tied up in the primary/only home. Then there’s also the problem you would likely see absolutely no units built in high demand areas, since the math wouldn’t pencil out until some sort of equilibrium was found.

neilv 4y ago
It could be phased in over time. Start by halting new acquisitions, then gradually undo the very recent boost due to institutional and foreign investors. But don't drag it out so long that billion-dollar conspirators have more chances to buy a reversal of legislation.
replygirl 4y ago
a clause for immediate reclamation of non-resident-owned properties through eminent domain would all but guarantee a ruling that the legislation is unconstitutional. current landlords would certainly be grandfathered in and, if we're lucky, maybe new leases would be banned and existing tenants would be guaranteed right to purchase units at appraisal. it'd be a similar story for non-resident investors without tenants, except in their case they'd be entitled to hold indefinitely.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Just tax em, no need to seize anything. People aren't going to stay invested in things that are clearly going to lose them money on an ongoing basis. You can even phase it in over time. That said, I think working on creating more housing is a better idea than making a bunch of rules about who can own existing housing.
  - thebradbain 4y ago
    I agree building is the only way out, I just think it’s a fun (but absurd) thought experiment
orangecat 4y ago
Potentially to the point where they worth pennies on the dollar People have to live somewhere. If you're renting and this insane policy gets enacted, you now need to buy something or you'll be out on the street. So supply increases, but demand increases by the same amount.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  No one is arguing the policy isn’t insane, I’ll be the first to admit it is. It has a million other problems to it, but it would absolutely cause dramatic price reductions: if everyone was limited to 1-2 units nationally (let’s say 1 home/unit in high demand cities), then there would absolutely be more supply than demand. A 400 unit apartment building where the landlord legally must sell 399 units (or all 400 assuming they have other properties), repeated en masse throughout the city, would truly see there being more units on the market than buyers, because a) investors and high net-worth individuals would not be able to buy, as they would be having to sell off to get under the legal cap b) the only available buyers would thus be those who are under the limit of the housing cap, i.e. renters, which are mostly those who could not afford a home at the previous prices in the area Considering the legal onus would be on the previous owners to sell per this insane law, sellers would rather make $100k>$10k>$1k than $0 and so there would be a rush to sell, exherting immediate downward prices on homes. In San Francisco, which is a city where >66% rent where they live (and thus <33% of the city owns the whole housing stock), you would see a giant flood of homes hit the market that the existing landed gentry would be unable to snap up, equalizing around a 100% live-own rate (because, again, once you buy one unit you can’t buy another, no matter how cheap it is)

neilv 4y ago

It could be phased in over time. Start by halting new acquisitions, then gradually undo the very recent boost due to institutional and foreign investors. But don't drag it out so long that billion-dollar conspirators have more chances to buy a reversal of legislation.

replygirl 4y ago

a clause for immediate reclamation of non-resident-owned properties through eminent domain would all but guarantee a ruling that the legislation is unconstitutional. current landlords would certainly be grandfathered in and, if we're lucky, maybe new leases would be banned and existing tenants would be guaranteed right to purchase units at appraisal. it'd be a similar story for non-resident investors without tenants, except in their case they'd be entitled to hold indefinitely.

maxerickson 4y ago
Just tax em, no need to seize anything. People aren't going to stay invested in things that are clearly going to lose them money on an ongoing basis. You can even phase it in over time. That said, I think working on creating more housing is a better idea than making a bunch of rules about who can own existing housing.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  I agree building is the only way out, I just think it’s a fun (but absurd) thought experiment

orangecat 4y ago

Potentially to the point where they worth pennies on the dollar People have to live somewhere. If you're renting and this insane policy gets enacted, you now need to buy something or you'll be out on the street. So supply increases, but demand increases by the same amount.

thebradbain 4y ago
No one is arguing the policy isn’t insane, I’ll be the first to admit it is. It has a million other problems to it, but it would absolutely cause dramatic price reductions: if everyone was limited to 1-2 units nationally (let’s say 1 home/unit in high demand cities), then there would absolutely be more supply than demand. A 400 unit apartment building where the landlord legally must sell 399 units (or all 400 assuming they have other properties), repeated en masse throughout the city, would truly see there being more units on the market than buyers, because a) investors and high net-worth individuals would not be able to buy, as they would be having to sell off to get under the legal cap b) the only available buyers would thus be those who are under the limit of the housing cap, i.e. renters, which are mostly those who could not afford a home at the previous prices in the area Considering the legal onus would be on the previous owners to sell per this insane law, sellers would rather make $100k>$10k>$1k than $0 and so there would be a rush to sell, exherting immediate downward prices on homes. In San Francisco, which is a city where >66% rent where they live (and thus <33% of the city owns the whole housing stock), you would see a giant flood of homes hit the market that the existing landed gentry would be unable to snap up, equalizing around a 100% live-own rate (because, again, once you buy one unit you can’t buy another, no matter how cheap it is)