4 ms·

Build more homes, lower permitting requirements, prohibit institutional ownership of single family, duplex up to 6 unit buildings. L

inetknght 3y ago
> Build more homes Building more homes... purchasable only by people (corporations) with money... to be rented out. Yes that is definitely something that hasn't been happening over the past several decades.
- taylodl 3y ago
  Reminds me of a meme where a lady is complaining that she can't approved for a mortgage and is forced to pay rent that's even higher than the mortgage would have been! Yeah, that's going to work! I think people are starting to learn again that the point to the game of Monopoly was that once someone has cornered the housing market, everybody else goes bankrupt. Now you're just watching it in real life. It's a human tragedy, but the market doesn't care.
- digitaltrees 3y ago
  The rest of my post would address that point. Prohibition on institutions investing. If needed put a cap on the number of units a person can own in one jurisdiction. Housing could be for use not investment if we wanted such a policy landscape. There may be unintended consequences but it’s a worthy experiment.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    What about apartment buildings built for rent only? Surely these can only be done by institutional investors, no single person has the capital to do a 100-200 unit apartment building?
  - inetknght 3y ago
    > If needed put a cap on the number of units a person can own in one jurisdiction. Individual people? Let's talk about investment companies as vehicles then.
soupfordummies 3y ago
>> prohibit institutional ownership of single family, duplex up to 6 unit buildings. A LOT of it is this one. During the peak of the home-buying frenzy, in Q1 last year (2022), ONE THIRD of homes in Atlanta were purchased by investors. https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2022/06/29/atlanta-investors-home-purchase-explained.html https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2022/06/29/atlanta-...
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  On average, 33% of Americans rent. So 33% of current homes are owned by investors and we'd expect to see 33% of new homes being purchased by investors.
  - digitaltrees 3y ago
    Institutional investors are not the same as individual investors. They can sit with large portfolios of vacant units in order to maintain elevated rent rates. Individual investors typically can’t.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      I find the opposite. Institutional investors hire people or companies to handle rentals. Individual investors (especially international ones) find it way too much and often just don't bother.
tiffanyg 3y ago
Yup, this hits a bunch of the basics. There are details, of course, but just like every "housing crisis" in the past, the parameters that need adjusting are fundamentally the same. Which way to adjust always changes. And, in part thus, always becomes the basis for the next crisis. For example, zoning requirements were mostly positive and useful at a time when some jerk might open up a steel mill right next to my house just because I happened to live on some useful waterway and near some rail that had been built...* and, this fostered development of land that was arguably underutilized in the economic landscape of the time (... "suburbia"). Of course, as happens with markets in general (and, especially, when you produce "professional businesspeople" and have laws regarding "fiduciary responsibility"), once primary development of new markets / "opportunities" is largely exhausted, then, the less net-positive behavior starts. I.e., when you hit a degree of "market saturation". The resistance of market participants to change in what they have "staked out". So, all the NIMBY crap. Some, for reasons most might empathize with. Some, by the greediest and most psychopathic (including in "big corporate" contexts), to stop any further development simply to maximize prices of assets they "own".** Right now, I'd say we're in a period of unusual disruption, even as disruptions go. Maybe more of a 1:50 year or even 1:100 year disruption. Changes related to the sudden significant increase in population that can potentially work from just about anywhere ... etc. Quite an upending of a relative status quo of, really, centuries ... and, of course, not having nearly as positive an impact on certain communities that formerly suffered more from people leaving than from people clamoring to move in ... In any case, as pressure increases, changes will be made - more and more rapid and large-scale. Unfortunately, it always takes years (and will basically guaranteed set up the next "trouble(s)"). But, fundamentally - more houses, change in permitting requirements towards "lower", rebalancing (decreasing) "institutional ownership", etc. * https://youtu.be/9mLu5jOUmws https://youtu.be/9mLu5jOUmws ** Own in quotes because that's a whole other area of sort of human absurdity that I'm not even going to get into - but, just interpret in whatever way you usually do

inetknght 3y ago

> Build more homes Building more homes... purchasable only by people (corporations) with money... to be rented out. Yes that is definitely something that hasn't been happening over the past several decades.

taylodl 3y ago
Reminds me of a meme where a lady is complaining that she can't approved for a mortgage and is forced to pay rent that's even higher than the mortgage would have been! Yeah, that's going to work! I think people are starting to learn again that the point to the game of Monopoly was that once someone has cornered the housing market, everybody else goes bankrupt. Now you're just watching it in real life. It's a human tragedy, but the market doesn't care.
digitaltrees 3y ago
The rest of my post would address that point. Prohibition on institutions investing. If needed put a cap on the number of units a person can own in one jurisdiction. Housing could be for use not investment if we wanted such a policy landscape. There may be unintended consequences but it’s a worthy experiment.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  What about apartment buildings built for rent only? Surely these can only be done by institutional investors, no single person has the capital to do a 100-200 unit apartment building?
- inetknght 3y ago
  > If needed put a cap on the number of units a person can own in one jurisdiction. Individual people? Let's talk about investment companies as vehicles then.

soupfordummies 3y ago

>> prohibit institutional ownership of single family, duplex up to 6 unit buildings. A LOT of it is this one. During the peak of the home-buying frenzy, in Q1 last year (2022), ONE THIRD of homes in Atlanta were purchased by investors. https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2022/06/29/atlanta-investors-home-purchase-explained.html https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2022/06/29/atlanta-...

bryanlarsen 3y ago
On average, 33% of Americans rent. So 33% of current homes are owned by investors and we'd expect to see 33% of new homes being purchased by investors.
- digitaltrees 3y ago
  Institutional investors are not the same as individual investors. They can sit with large portfolios of vacant units in order to maintain elevated rent rates. Individual investors typically can’t.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    I find the opposite. Institutional investors hire people or companies to handle rentals. Individual investors (especially international ones) find it way too much and often just don't bother.

tiffanyg 3y ago

Yup, this hits a bunch of the basics. There are details, of course, but just like every "housing crisis" in the past, the parameters that need adjusting are fundamentally the same. Which way to adjust always changes. And, in part thus, always becomes the basis for the next crisis. For example, zoning requirements were mostly positive and useful at a time when some jerk might open up a steel mill right next to my house just because I happened to live on some useful waterway and near some rail that had been built...* and, this fostered development of land that was arguably underutilized in the economic landscape of the time (... "suburbia"). Of course, as happens with markets in general (and, especially, when you produce "professional businesspeople" and have laws regarding "fiduciary responsibility"), once primary development of new markets / "opportunities" is largely exhausted, then, the less net-positive behavior starts. I.e., when you hit a degree of "market saturation". The resistance of market participants to change in what they have "staked out". So, all the NIMBY crap. Some, for reasons most might empathize with. Some, by the greediest and most psychopathic (including in "big corporate" contexts), to stop any further development simply to maximize prices of assets they "own".** Right now, I'd say we're in a period of unusual disruption, even as disruptions go. Maybe more of a 1:50 year or even 1:100 year disruption. Changes related to the sudden significant increase in population that can potentially work from just about anywhere ... etc. Quite an upending of a relative status quo of, really, centuries ... and, of course, not having nearly as positive an impact on certain communities that formerly suffered more from people leaving than from people clamoring to move in ... In any case, as pressure increases, changes will be made - more and more rapid and large-scale. Unfortunately, it always takes years (and will basically guaranteed set up the next "trouble(s)"). But, fundamentally - more houses, change in permitting requirements towards "lower", rebalancing (decreasing) "institutional ownership", etc. * https://youtu.be/9mLu5jOUmws https://youtu.be/9mLu5jOUmws ** Own in quotes because that's a whole other area of sort of human absurdity that I'm not even going to get into - but, just interpret in whatever way you usually do