7 ms·
Investors are chasing easy profits. The fault lies with anti- development and NIMBY forces
by throwaway6734 4y ago
Investors are chasing easy profits. The fault lies with anti- development and NIMBY forces
- thorncorona 4y agoWould be nice if our so called corporate overlords grew some morals for a change.
- javajosh 4y agoSo, yes, housing is artificially scarce because of "anti-development and NIMBY forces". But there are other forces at work, particularly good old market forces. Corpos that compete with me when I am buying housing for my family can go suck a big fat dick.
- throwaway6734 4y ago>Corpos that compete with me when I am buying housing for my family can go suck a big fat dick. Why? If they're willing to overpay for properties it will benefit the current homeowner and will encourage new development
- Jotra7 4y ago[dead]
- DangitBobby 4y agoDoes it really benefit the current homeowner if the house they buy with the money also has inflated prices?
- Valakas_ 4y agoAnd with that every single house around also increases in price, because house prices are often dictated by what comparable houses recently sold for. As if they weren't already expensive enough. Besides, I don't think lack of profit prospects is currently a bottleneck for house building. There seems to be tons of regulations and control to what is allowable to be built. And from, there it doesn't matter that building a house would be 20% profit, if it's illegal to do so.
- Aunche 4y agoMarket forces exist whether you like it or not. If you design policy pretending that they don't, the market just spills over to a closed system of exchanging political favors, AKA corruption.
- ehnto 4y agoCorporate rental housing should not be allowed. Free markets are not fair enough to make sure everyone is properly housed, and once enough of it is owned they will price gouge. There are plenty of other places for companies to make money. In my opinion, housing is the final frontier for this. If housing is bought up by corporates and rented back, we are both feet into corporate dystopia. Land should be between citizens and the states that write the titles.
- throwaway6734 4y agoWhy allow anyone to own multiple houses then? Providing rental properties is a valuable service
- wildrhythms 4y ago> Providing rental properties is a valuable service Carpenters and bricklayers provide a service. Plumbers and electricians provide a service. Simply holding a deed is not a service.
- metadat 4y agoMaintaining the property is certainly a service.
- crote 4y agoLandlords virtually always hire maintenance companies to maintain the property - and you're paying for it via your rent. You could hire the same maintenance companies if you owned it yourself.
- the_gastropod 4y agoI have been a renter my entire adult life, and over the decades have plowed several hundred thousand dollars into the pockets of the various landlords I’ve rented from. The total maintenance done during all my tenancy is: 1. A broken seal on a washing machine was replaced 2. A leaky toilet was repaired 3. A broken kitchen drawer was replaced I don’t believe my case is particularly uncommon. In ~20 years of renting, ~$500k of rent paid, the total maintenance done on the units I’ve rented probably cost under $100. Toss in the most expensive paint and cleaning regimen after I’ve vacated, and let’s call it a cool $1,000. If the value landlords are providing is “maintaining properties”, their margins here are colossal.
- HWR_14 4y agoJPM decided it was more profitable to buy single family homes instead of apartment complexes. I'm not sure it's as simple as "more apartments = more money".