5 ms·
NIBYism always comes up when talking about the cost-of-living crisis. Did you know just 12 entities own a majority of Bay Area real estate [0]? Do you really th
by rcme 3y ago
NIBYism always comes up when talking about the cost-of-living crisis. Did you know just 12 entities own a majority of Bay Area real estate [0]? Do you really think building more units is going to stop those entities from continuing their oligopoly on residential real estate in the area?
But yea, I'm sure it's those damn people who like their backyard causing this crisis!!! In my opinion, this anti-NIMBY push is likely supported by these megalithic property owners. They’ve run out of units to buy and can no longer grow their cash flow. The solution to this problem is to take property from existing property owners. Pretty much all legislation in this countries happens with support or approval from corporate interests. It would not surprise me at all to find out corporate interests were the driving force that is compelling the state to override local zoning ordinances.
Another thing to consider is, why is the proposed solution forcing local governments to give up their zoning rights? Why don’t we force real estate investors to give up some of their units so people have a place to live? How can some people own thousands of units before others have even one?
0: https://www.fastcompany.com/90792419/12-mega-landlords-own-majority-of-the-san-francisco-bay-area https://www.fastcompany.com/90792419/12-mega-landlords-own-m...
- grandmczeb 3y ago> the properties owned by those 12 real estate giants and Veritas represent a fraction (0.3%) of the data. From the linked SF Chronicle article.
- rcme 3y agoI don’t see that in the linked article: https://archive.is/fZntY https://archive.is/fZntY
- grandmczeb 3y agohttps://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/sf-bay-area-property-map/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/sf-bay-area-proper... Third paragraph. But also, from your link “we’re confident this list of 12 includes some of the region’s major power players in residential real estate, housing tens of thousands of families in nearly 7,000 assessor-defined properties from San Jose to Santa Rosa”. 7k / 2.3M = 0.3%
- rcme 3y agoIf you read their methodology, the 2.3M records includes government owned buildings, commercial, and developer-owned properties. But yes I agree “most” is a stretch in the original article.
- grandmczeb 3y agoMore than a stretch - there’s almost 200k residential properties in SF alone. 7k across the whole Bay Area is tiny no matter how you slice it. Just curious, but does this change your original opinion at all?
- rcme 3y agoNo, because the broader point still stands that many properties are owned by investors. Also, 7k is the number of parcels, which can include apartment buildings containing hundreds of units counted as a single parcel.
- grandmczeb 3y agoYour original comment alleges an “ oligopoly”. How many units would you guess all 12 owners have across the 7k properties?
- rcme 3y agoYes, I admit that "oligopoly" is a mischaracterization (based off of the original article), but over 60% of housing units in SF are not owner-occupied (as of 2021): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocitycalifornia,US/HSG445221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocit...
- grandmczeb 3y agoIf there's no oligopoly, why does it matter that a lot of people rent? What part of your original comment does that support?
- imgabe 3y agoWhat do you think investors are doing with housing units? Do you think they just hoard empty apartments so they can twirl their mustaches and laugh at homeless people? Those units already have people living in them. Changing the ownership won’t increase the amount of housing. If you want cheaper housing, you need to build more, not play musical chairs with the same existing units that aren’t enough.