3 ms·

These are popular ideas in many places, but here are just some things to consider: 1a) If you town bans short-term rentals but the next town over doesn't, then

These are popular ideas in many places, but here are just some things to consider: 1a) If you town bans short-term rentals but the next town over doesn't, then guess what - the investors just migrate and you haven't actually changed much. 1b) Highest and best use is a really important concept. There are properties that make for not great permanent dwellings but are great short-term rentals. When you put artificial restrictions in place, it doesn't actually help supply. 2) There is so much money here in the US that even banning foreign ownership doesn't matter much. I live in a tourist / second-home market and it's people from the region who are buying up the investments. 3a) My community went to relaxed zoning years ahead of the state. Helped a little, but not as much as everyone hoped. Turns out that it is still expensive to build multi-family, ADUs, etc and not a fit for every life need. 3b) While zoning changes are good, I continue to hammer on income / jobs as a bigger factor in many markets. Don't come at me with SFO or some other example - every market is going to be different. But in places like mine, the make up of the economy is a bigger factor to affordability than zoning or these other changes. Fixing the whole regional economy is not a simple problem and it doesn't campaign well in political stump speeches like "fix zoning" does.

danaris 3y ago
> 1a) If you town bans short-term rentals but the next town over doesn't, then guess what - the investors just migrate and you haven't actually changed much. On the contrary: you've changed the housing supply in your town. Sure, some of the money will go to the next town over, but if you're running your town as if it's a business you deserve to end up with a hollow wasteland. > 2) There is so much money here in the US that even banning foreign ownership doesn't matter much. I live in a tourist / second-home market and it's people from the region who are buying up the investments. Given what I've heard about the amount of properties being bought up by Chinese investors (which tracks with what else I know about the market and how China has been progressing in recent years, so I have no reason to doubt it), I think it unlikely that, were they all to be forced out of the market, domestic investors would be able to simply fill the vacuum with no net change. Investment dollars chasing real estate may be far more plentiful than is healthy, but they are not infinite.
- poulsbohemian 3y ago
  >On the contrary: you've changed the housing supply in your town. Obvs every market is going to have its nuances and differences... in my area, the largest city banned new STR a few years ago - and absolutely nothing changed. Ironically, the smaller city next door that didn't ban is growing and thriving on multiple levels in ways the town that banned is not. Likewise, because the county (and next county over as well, which is just a few mile away) didn't ban, all it really meant was that city that put in place a ban received less tourism tax revenue while all the other entities benefitted. The other nuance I was trying to communicate - we had a lot of housing built during the war to support the training base. They are great little houses for a weekend visit, but they stink as permanent dwellings. This is a part of the supply / inventory problem I don't hear discussed enough. For example, if you have a ton of 4000 square foot houses ($$$$) but your buyers are all first-time / first-upgrade types ($$), you've still got an inventory problem.

danaris 3y ago

> 1a) If you town bans short-term rentals but the next town over doesn't, then guess what - the investors just migrate and you haven't actually changed much. On the contrary: you've changed the housing supply in your town. Sure, some of the money will go to the next town over, but if you're running your town as if it's a business you deserve to end up with a hollow wasteland. > 2) There is so much money here in the US that even banning foreign ownership doesn't matter much. I live in a tourist / second-home market and it's people from the region who are buying up the investments. Given what I've heard about the amount of properties being bought up by Chinese investors (which tracks with what else I know about the market and how China has been progressing in recent years, so I have no reason to doubt it), I think it unlikely that, were they all to be forced out of the market, domestic investors would be able to simply fill the vacuum with no net change. Investment dollars chasing real estate may be far more plentiful than is healthy, but they are not infinite.

poulsbohemian 3y ago
>On the contrary: you've changed the housing supply in your town. Obvs every market is going to have its nuances and differences... in my area, the largest city banned new STR a few years ago - and absolutely nothing changed. Ironically, the smaller city next door that didn't ban is growing and thriving on multiple levels in ways the town that banned is not. Likewise, because the county (and next county over as well, which is just a few mile away) didn't ban, all it really meant was that city that put in place a ban received less tourism tax revenue while all the other entities benefitted. The other nuance I was trying to communicate - we had a lot of housing built during the war to support the training base. They are great little houses for a weekend visit, but they stink as permanent dwellings. This is a part of the supply / inventory problem I don't hear discussed enough. For example, if you have a ton of 4000 square foot houses ($$$$) but your buyers are all first-time / first-upgrade types ($$), you've still got an inventory problem.