5 ms·

> multiple home ownership There will always be the need for landlords in some circumstances. Not everyone wants to own a home and sometimes life dictates the n

> multiple home ownership There will always be the need for landlords in some circumstances. Not everyone wants to own a home and sometimes life dictates the need for flexibility. Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure what to think of it, but the idea of owning investments isn't going to dissolve any time soon and physical assets (homes) are one investment vehicle. Coming from a person who has rented for a long time, currently owns one home and does not rent.

vanilla_nut 4y ago
Agreed. But we could remove some of the economic incentive for investment properties and short-term rentals. No reason they should benefit so much from inflation AND rent. Drawing that line is a difficult one, but I think it's clear that right now there are way too many incentives towards rent-seeking to the point where it's actually hurting folks who don't rent-seek.
- notyourwork 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mullen 4y ago
    > Housing is a tough problem in the same way the medical care is a tough problem. There are economics at play and individuals finances. I don't have a good solution but have trouble accepting blanket statements that sort of hand wavily ignore real market demand for things. These are not hard nor tough problems. Every industrial nation and many developing nations have the medical care issue solved. The US ignores solutions to the medical care issue due to our corrupt political system. Remove Legal Bribery from the political system and the US would implement a number of solutions that would solve about 80% of the medical care issues.
    - notyourwork 4y ago
      They are hard problems because of the political landscape in the US. Sorry but I thought that was implied by my statement. Clearly there are simple implementations that can solve the problem.
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        The political landscape in the US consists precisely of landlords and incumbent homeowners putting pressure on policymakers to keep prices high.
zjp 4y ago
In California the problem is mostly that over time if you've held property it's become insanely cheap to be a landlord. Prop 13 applies to every parcel in the state. Even Florida tackles this more sensibly. A person's primary residence can get a homestead exemption and that's it. John Paul Stevens on Prop 13[1]: In comments from the bench, Blackmun called California’s tax system “distasteful, unwise and not likely to be copied by others.” Justice John Paul Stevens, the lone dissenter, called the state’s longtime homeowners “squires” who voted themselves “a tremendous windfall” at the expense of young people and new residents. “Simply put,” he said, “those who invested in California real estate in the 1970s are among the most fortunate capitalists in the world.” [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-19-mn-704-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-19-mn-704-st...
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  Prop 13 has basically turned California into a very expensive capitalistic approximations of feudal Europe. At least the weather is nice.
- maherbeg 4y ago
  Have there been any attempts to modify Prop 13 to a homestead exemption over time? It seems like it should be relatively straight forward to start narrowing it down bit by bit.
  - frumper 4y ago
    The most recent election a proposition failed to remove commercial properties from the protection.
  - zjp 4y ago
    As frumper says, there was a recent attempt to remove Prop 13 for commercial properties, but it narrowly failed because the argument was that the reform movement was coming for homeowners next.
cnelsenmilt 4y ago
Yes, but AirBnB units are not that. The prices are an order of magnitude higher than prevailing monthly rates, if they're even available on a long-term basis. And yes, short term, furnished rentals probably also have a place in the market. But it's a small place. The vast majority of people need a location that's stable on an annual+ basis and whose price has a reasonable relationship to local wages.
- notch898a 4y ago
  The problem I ran into when I lived in Chicago was there were quite a few renter protections built into the city statutes. So landlords were quite weary of renting to someone like me with bad credit and rental history, as eviction could be burdensome. AirBnB allowed long term residents like me to actually get a place to stay by side-stepping renter protections and allowing a landlord to take a chance on a bad apple. Without AirBnB I would have been homeless.
  - vanilla_nut 4y ago
    I think you would have been even better off with the cheap halfway houses that used to exist in American cities in the early 20th century. AirBnBs are so expensive I'm not sure they really fill the economic gap you're talking about -- very, very few people who can afford to stay in an AirBnB long-term also have poor credit and rental history.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      How can they be better off in something that doesn’t exist in our reality ? Source: currently looking into extended stay Airbnb for family member with no credit history
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Yes the place I stayed was a crammed together house of people that can only be described as a slightly upgrade over a crack house on the South side. It was in the hood with people selling loose squares on the corner. My presence was only tolerated in the area because I had "business" in the area as a paying tenant to a known member of the neighborhood. There's no way in hell this was some place that pleasant white upper class families were staying on vacation or something. The people that rented it were happy to have market penetration to people who weren't in the neighborhood to cause problems, and most of the "tenants" were working class people who had one foot in the hood and one foot working their way up in legitimate jobs closer to the loop. AirBnB IS the new halfway house.
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> There will always be the need for landlords in some circumstances. Landlords do not need to be private individuals :) > but the idea of owning investments isn't going to dissolve any time soon and physical assets (homes) are one investment vehicle. Singapore, a country that scores higher in the Capitalism Index than the US, has no private landlords and all land is goverment owned. You buy your house from the goverment for non market rates, and if you wanna sell it or move elsewhere, you sell it for the price at that point. It is no longer an investment, and people have more space, smaller rents and an easier way to go through the housing ladder (from starter home -> family home -> retirement home) than in almost any US metro. Another alternative is Vienna. The Austrian capital has ton of communally owned houses. This means everyone in the block, owns the whole block, therefore the prices are not market prices but fair prices. Despite this houses representing only 40% of the total market, by having a non market offering of housing prices, this cools down market prices and they have some of the most affordable private owned houses in European capitals. A third alternative is UK 1950's scheme of council housing. A percentage of every new build is done by the goverment and they allocate those houses with reduced rents to its owners. The differece with the modern "social housing" is that is not a block in the ghetto for poor people, but a mixture of houses for everyone in the council to apply. For example The Barbican, a now iconic buulding, was built by the council for high skill workers, lawyers, CEOs etc (with an average rent that would be too high for minimum wage renters). Despite this target audience, they froze rent for 5 years to help families grow and settle into those homes. There are a million better ways to supply housing than private landlords and letting companies buy entire blocks as investment vehicles.
- notyourwork 4y ago
  Thank you for sharing this. I was not aware of the way these countries operated, it's a very interested way to manage this.

vanilla_nut 4y ago

Agreed. But we could remove some of the economic incentive for investment properties and short-term rentals. No reason they should benefit so much from inflation AND rent. Drawing that line is a difficult one, but I think it's clear that right now there are way too many incentives towards rent-seeking to the point where it's actually hurting folks who don't rent-seek.

notyourwork 4y ago
[flagged]
- mullen 4y ago
  > Housing is a tough problem in the same way the medical care is a tough problem. There are economics at play and individuals finances. I don't have a good solution but have trouble accepting blanket statements that sort of hand wavily ignore real market demand for things. These are not hard nor tough problems. Every industrial nation and many developing nations have the medical care issue solved. The US ignores solutions to the medical care issue due to our corrupt political system. Remove Legal Bribery from the political system and the US would implement a number of solutions that would solve about 80% of the medical care issues.
  - notyourwork 4y ago
    They are hard problems because of the political landscape in the US. Sorry but I thought that was implied by my statement. Clearly there are simple implementations that can solve the problem.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      The political landscape in the US consists precisely of landlords and incumbent homeowners putting pressure on policymakers to keep prices high.

zjp 4y ago

In California the problem is mostly that over time if you've held property it's become insanely cheap to be a landlord. Prop 13 applies to every parcel in the state. Even Florida tackles this more sensibly. A person's primary residence can get a homestead exemption and that's it. John Paul Stevens on Prop 13[1]: In comments from the bench, Blackmun called California’s tax system “distasteful, unwise and not likely to be copied by others.” Justice John Paul Stevens, the lone dissenter, called the state’s longtime homeowners “squires” who voted themselves “a tremendous windfall” at the expense of young people and new residents. “Simply put,” he said, “those who invested in California real estate in the 1970s are among the most fortunate capitalists in the world.” [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-19-mn-704-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-19-mn-704-st...

vanilla_nut 4y ago
Prop 13 has basically turned California into a very expensive capitalistic approximations of feudal Europe. At least the weather is nice.
maherbeg 4y ago
Have there been any attempts to modify Prop 13 to a homestead exemption over time? It seems like it should be relatively straight forward to start narrowing it down bit by bit.
- frumper 4y ago
  The most recent election a proposition failed to remove commercial properties from the protection.
- zjp 4y ago
  As frumper says, there was a recent attempt to remove Prop 13 for commercial properties, but it narrowly failed because the argument was that the reform movement was coming for homeowners next.

cnelsenmilt 4y ago

Yes, but AirBnB units are not that. The prices are an order of magnitude higher than prevailing monthly rates, if they're even available on a long-term basis. And yes, short term, furnished rentals probably also have a place in the market. But it's a small place. The vast majority of people need a location that's stable on an annual+ basis and whose price has a reasonable relationship to local wages.

notch898a 4y ago
The problem I ran into when I lived in Chicago was there were quite a few renter protections built into the city statutes. So landlords were quite weary of renting to someone like me with bad credit and rental history, as eviction could be burdensome. AirBnB allowed long term residents like me to actually get a place to stay by side-stepping renter protections and allowing a landlord to take a chance on a bad apple. Without AirBnB I would have been homeless.
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  I think you would have been even better off with the cheap halfway houses that used to exist in American cities in the early 20th century. AirBnBs are so expensive I'm not sure they really fill the economic gap you're talking about -- very, very few people who can afford to stay in an AirBnB long-term also have poor credit and rental history.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    How can they be better off in something that doesn’t exist in our reality ? Source: currently looking into extended stay Airbnb for family member with no credit history
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Yes the place I stayed was a crammed together house of people that can only be described as a slightly upgrade over a crack house on the South side. It was in the hood with people selling loose squares on the corner. My presence was only tolerated in the area because I had "business" in the area as a paying tenant to a known member of the neighborhood. There's no way in hell this was some place that pleasant white upper class families were staying on vacation or something. The people that rented it were happy to have market penetration to people who weren't in the neighborhood to cause problems, and most of the "tenants" were working class people who had one foot in the hood and one foot working their way up in legitimate jobs closer to the loop. AirBnB IS the new halfway house.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

> There will always be the need for landlords in some circumstances. Landlords do not need to be private individuals :) > but the idea of owning investments isn't going to dissolve any time soon and physical assets (homes) are one investment vehicle. Singapore, a country that scores higher in the Capitalism Index than the US, has no private landlords and all land is goverment owned. You buy your house from the goverment for non market rates, and if you wanna sell it or move elsewhere, you sell it for the price at that point. It is no longer an investment, and people have more space, smaller rents and an easier way to go through the housing ladder (from starter home -> family home -> retirement home) than in almost any US metro. Another alternative is Vienna. The Austrian capital has ton of communally owned houses. This means everyone in the block, owns the whole block, therefore the prices are not market prices but fair prices. Despite this houses representing only 40% of the total market, by having a non market offering of housing prices, this cools down market prices and they have some of the most affordable private owned houses in European capitals. A third alternative is UK 1950's scheme of council housing. A percentage of every new build is done by the goverment and they allocate those houses with reduced rents to its owners. The differece with the modern "social housing" is that is not a block in the ghetto for poor people, but a mixture of houses for everyone in the council to apply. For example The Barbican, a now iconic buulding, was built by the council for high skill workers, lawyers, CEOs etc (with an average rent that would be too high for minimum wage renters). Despite this target audience, they froze rent for 5 years to help families grow and settle into those homes. There are a million better ways to supply housing than private landlords and letting companies buy entire blocks as investment vehicles.

notyourwork 4y ago
Thank you for sharing this. I was not aware of the way these countries operated, it's a very interested way to manage this.