3 ms·

> Housing that is owned by corporations have no price controls. They will charge what the market will bear That has nothing to do with corporate ownership, tha

> Housing that is owned by corporations have no price controls. They will charge what the market will bear That has nothing to do with corporate ownership, that is all housing in the US except for the tiny tiny fraction of deed-restricted LIHTC financed means-tested housing and the minuscule amount of public housing left in the US. Corporations can own deed-restricted means-tested price controlled housing, but that's not SFH. So there's zero change in profit seeking when corporations own homes versus anybody else owning homes. The entire real estate industry focuses on maximizing property values. Homeowners sell based on maximum price, there are zero price controls on any of it. Plus, primary residences get capital gains tax exemptions that corporations do not, further incentivizing homeowners to profit even more than corporations. > Housing owned by corporations is housing that can't be owned by homeowners. I think this makes it clear, you only consider the homeowners the "people" and view corporations as competitors in the housing market. I think we should have a broader view and consider the interests of renters too, as full people. Those 3.5% down payment mortgages have additional mortgage insurance payments that are outrageous and drive up the mortgage price considerably.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
I think we just fundamentally disagree; I don't believe institutional ownership of some classes of residential real estate should exist and there should be rent control when needed, when supply simply will never meet demand. The evidence in my citations above demonstrate why. Housing > profits, it's really that simple. Institutional investors can find another asset class for exposure.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Every single home owner is an investor, and often it is there primary asset, that they put all their effort into maximizing financially, as much as possible. We do fundamentally disagree, I do not view homeowner profits as more virtuous than corporate profits, and in fact corporate profits will be less than resident homeowner profits, due to tax incentives. Housing is more important than profits, but corporate owned single family homes actually result in less profit than the current homeowner-run system.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Do you support rent control? You're making the argument the fight is between homeowners and renters, but you're not addressing landlord profiteering. How will you ensure rent is affordable for renters (as I've shown, it clear isn't for 30-50% of Americans) if increasing supply does not increase affordability?
    - epistasis 3y ago
      This is a completely unrelated issue, but I do support rent control. Rents were completely unaffordable before the corporate story entered the picture, and at only 11% of the SFH market, it's not the main issue, and perhaps most importantly, nobody ever complained about corporate ownership of apartment buildings. Rents are completely unaffordable even in places that have rent control. The only affordability measure that works is providing enough housing to meet people's desire to live in a place. I ask you, what are homeowners' profits virtuous but corporate profits not? The corporate ownership of SFH is a sign that there are huge profits in owning homes, not the cause of it.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Homeowners should be taxed on their primary residence gains just as corporations should be. I am fully in favor of removing the primary residence tax exemption.
        epistasis 3y ago
        We can agree on this! Would you be in favor of changing the system such that homeownership is no longer such a profitable endeavor, where it leads to unaffordability for future generations? This is the core of the problem in my view, and corporate ownership is a way of distracting people from taking political action on the core problem confronting our housing situation.
        toomuchtodo 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I think we just fundamentally disagree; I don't believe institutional ownership of some classes of residential real estate should exist and there should be rent control when needed, when supply simply will never meet demand. The evidence in my citations above demonstrate why. Housing > profits, it's really that simple. Institutional investors can find another asset class for exposure.

epistasis 3y ago
Every single home owner is an investor, and often it is there primary asset, that they put all their effort into maximizing financially, as much as possible. We do fundamentally disagree, I do not view homeowner profits as more virtuous than corporate profits, and in fact corporate profits will be less than resident homeowner profits, due to tax incentives. Housing is more important than profits, but corporate owned single family homes actually result in less profit than the current homeowner-run system.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Do you support rent control? You're making the argument the fight is between homeowners and renters, but you're not addressing landlord profiteering. How will you ensure rent is affordable for renters (as I've shown, it clear isn't for 30-50% of Americans) if increasing supply does not increase affordability?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    This is a completely unrelated issue, but I do support rent control. Rents were completely unaffordable before the corporate story entered the picture, and at only 11% of the SFH market, it's not the main issue, and perhaps most importantly, nobody ever complained about corporate ownership of apartment buildings. Rents are completely unaffordable even in places that have rent control. The only affordability measure that works is providing enough housing to meet people's desire to live in a place. I ask you, what are homeowners' profits virtuous but corporate profits not? The corporate ownership of SFH is a sign that there are huge profits in owning homes, not the cause of it.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Homeowners should be taxed on their primary residence gains just as corporations should be. I am fully in favor of removing the primary residence tax exemption.
      - epistasis 3y ago
        We can agree on this! Would you be in favor of changing the system such that homeownership is no longer such a profitable endeavor, where it leads to unaffordability for future generations? This is the core of the problem in my view, and corporate ownership is a way of distracting people from taking political action on the core problem confronting our housing situation.
        toomuchtodo 3y ago