5 ms·

Most of the investment houses in my area are used as vacation rentals for half the year, so they're only for rent at market price to tenants about six months ou

Most of the investment houses in my area are used as vacation rentals for half the year, so they're only for rent at market price to tenants about six months out of the year.

gloryjulio 3y ago
The resolution is simple, crack down hard on short term rentals and empty homes , ensure that only long term rentals or the owners who actually live in the house are allowed. or u have to pay a huge monthly tax or fine Then the next step is to build like a crazy. The only way to cull the demand is to actually meet the demand. Just make the investment as unappealing as possible. Whether these can be put into practice, that's another story
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  I wonder how demographics play into this: if the median current homeowner (primary residence) age is close enough to the median age people die or go into assisted living facilities, then we might see market conditions change drastically in various parts of the country.
- creer 3y ago
  Also that you cannot have both that and the tourism industry that this area - presumably - partly lives from. You might say "but hotels" but these short term rentals are being rented because they are wanted.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    Hotel is just more regulated short termed rental, which is exactly what we should be doing - regulate the short rentals home more, make it economically inappealling. The tourists can pay for the hotels
    - candiodari 3y ago
      Then no more tourists. No-one wants that.
      - gloryjulio 3y ago
        Why raising the price for the tourism to the match the actual cost would mean no tourism? If they can't afford the travel cost there, maybe go somewhere else cheaper? The only reason short rentals are cheaper was that they are getting around the regulations AND they sacrifices the local population and push up the prices of the real estate and rentals. Or do you mean tourism was invented after Airbnb? huh?
xnx 3y ago
Properties that pay taxes, but don't use many city services seems like a great deal for people who do live there.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Not if they can't afford their own rent. if you actually look at housing inflation vs. wage growth, the real story is that people are getting substantially poorer over time. A little bit of extra tax revenue to their town or city isn't going to offset that. But yes, it's nice when someone is contributing to your living space but doesn't actually live there. Localized example: my building neighbor is away ~50% of the time and it's amazing. I get all the benefits of a multi-unit building with a dedicated landlord, but my day-to-day life is a lot like living in a single-family detached house.
  - xnx 3y ago
    It's a very complex issue. Housing inflation v. wage growth charts often don't account for houses being much bigger and better than the used to be and more people wanting to live in fewer areas. Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), you can look at price per square foot and see the same story. Prices of 100-year-old 1400-sqft homes are going up too, faster than consumer prices and faster than wages. > more people wanting to live in fewer areas > Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago As far as I know, people wanting to live in remote areas was a relatively short-lived phenomenon in American history, facilitated by a number of economic and political factors that are not repeatable. My personal belief is that improving mass transit (think: Netherlands) is the best and most sustainable way to mitigate the current crisis, especially in the Boston area.
      - 3y ago

Most of the investment houses in my area are used as vacation rentals for half the year, so they're only for rent at market price to tenants about six months out of the year.

gloryjulio 3y ago

The resolution is simple, crack down hard on short term rentals and empty homes , ensure that only long term rentals or the owners who actually live in the house are allowed. or u have to pay a huge monthly tax or fine Then the next step is to build like a crazy. The only way to cull the demand is to actually meet the demand. Just make the investment as unappealing as possible. Whether these can be put into practice, that's another story

fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
I wonder how demographics play into this: if the median current homeowner (primary residence) age is close enough to the median age people die or go into assisted living facilities, then we might see market conditions change drastically in various parts of the country.
creer 3y ago
Also that you cannot have both that and the tourism industry that this area - presumably - partly lives from. You might say "but hotels" but these short term rentals are being rented because they are wanted.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  Hotel is just more regulated short termed rental, which is exactly what we should be doing - regulate the short rentals home more, make it economically inappealling. The tourists can pay for the hotels
  - candiodari 3y ago
    Then no more tourists. No-one wants that.
    - gloryjulio 3y ago
      Why raising the price for the tourism to the match the actual cost would mean no tourism? If they can't afford the travel cost there, maybe go somewhere else cheaper? The only reason short rentals are cheaper was that they are getting around the regulations AND they sacrifices the local population and push up the prices of the real estate and rentals. Or do you mean tourism was invented after Airbnb? huh?

xnx 3y ago

Properties that pay taxes, but don't use many city services seems like a great deal for people who do live there.

nerdponx 3y ago
Not if they can't afford their own rent. if you actually look at housing inflation vs. wage growth, the real story is that people are getting substantially poorer over time. A little bit of extra tax revenue to their town or city isn't going to offset that. But yes, it's nice when someone is contributing to your living space but doesn't actually live there. Localized example: my building neighbor is away ~50% of the time and it's amazing. I get all the benefits of a multi-unit building with a dedicated landlord, but my day-to-day life is a lot like living in a single-family detached house.
- xnx 3y ago
  It's a very complex issue. Housing inflation v. wage growth charts often don't account for houses being much bigger and better than the used to be and more people wanting to live in fewer areas. Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), you can look at price per square foot and see the same story. Prices of 100-year-old 1400-sqft homes are going up too, faster than consumer prices and faster than wages. > more people wanting to live in fewer areas > Housing would probably be cheap if we chose to live in the same types of remote areas we did 60 years ago As far as I know, people wanting to live in remote areas was a relatively short-lived phenomenon in American history, facilitated by a number of economic and political factors that are not repeatable. My personal belief is that improving mass transit (think: Netherlands) is the best and most sustainable way to mitigate the current crisis, especially in the Boston area.
    - 3y ago