17 ms·

> Most recently, we began investing in new construction, purpose-built for-rent housing developments that add supply to the market and address the increasing de

by tw04 3y ago

> Most recently, we began investing in new construction, purpose-built for-rent housing developments that add supply to the market and address the increasing demand we see for this property type. Our focus is on building single-family rental housing that can be managed and operated similar to multifamily properties with dedicated property management, leasing and amenities. So you aren’t buying existing houses, but you’re buying land to build houses for the sole purpose of renting. To say you aren’t participating in the market is disingenuous at best. Congrats, you found it’s cheaper to build new than refurbish existing, that doesn’t really change the calculus that you’re trying to eliminate home ownership in the US.

tootie 3y ago
They didn't say they aren't participating. They said quite clearly that they are. The accusation has been that they are buying single-family homes and then renting them out. Their position here is that they don't operate at that level at all. They are merely providing capital to companies who may or may not be doing stuff like that at scale.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > They are merely providing capital to companies who may or may not be doing stuff like that at scale. "Merely" is doing a lot of work there. As is "may or may not be". BlackRock very explicitly provides loans with the specific purpose of doing exactly that. "They provide capital to companies to do stuff like that at scale".
finolex1 3y ago
New homes are new homes. Whether they are for rent or for sale is largely immaterial. It's interesting that this is viewed in a negative light too.
- grammarxcore 3y ago
  If you are contending only the rich should be able to own homes, sure. Canada’s had a huge problem of rent vs own and has seen a huge cost of living increase. Building homes exclusively to rent is a net negative when looked at through the lens of home ownership. If, however, you just want companies busy building homes their employees will have to pay someone else to use for the rest of their lives, it’s okay to build just for renting.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > Whether they are for rent or for sale is largely immaterial. this is flaty false

by tw04 3y ago

tootie 3y ago

They didn't say they aren't participating. They said quite clearly that they are. The accusation has been that they are buying single-family homes and then renting them out. Their position here is that they don't operate at that level at all. They are merely providing capital to companies who may or may not be doing stuff like that at scale.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> They are merely providing capital to companies who may or may not be doing stuff like that at scale. "Merely" is doing a lot of work there. As is "may or may not be". BlackRock very explicitly provides loans with the specific purpose of doing exactly that. "They provide capital to companies to do stuff like that at scale".

finolex1 3y ago

New homes are new homes. Whether they are for rent or for sale is largely immaterial. It's interesting that this is viewed in a negative light too.

grammarxcore 3y ago
If you are contending only the rich should be able to own homes, sure. Canada’s had a huge problem of rent vs own and has seen a huge cost of living increase. Building homes exclusively to rent is a net negative when looked at through the lens of home ownership. If, however, you just want companies busy building homes their employees will have to pay someone else to use for the rest of their lives, it’s okay to build just for renting.
mistrial9 3y ago
> Whether they are for rent or for sale is largely immaterial. this is flaty false