2 ms·

Nice try. Oh The Urbanity! - "What Happened When This City Banned Housing Investors": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers https://www.youtube.com/watch?

by nayuki 2y ago

Nice try. Oh The Urbanity! - "What Happened When This City Banned Housing Investors": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers

throwitaway222 2y ago
It was such a small study that it favorably attracted outsiders that finally got a chance at owning, which gentrified the community. If this was more of a global policy, the study would have reveal massively different results.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I'm not watching that clickbaity nonsense, but I will happily flip through the studies they cite as their sources, and doing so tells me several things. For one, the city did not "ban housing investors," they banned some investors from purchasing a subset of homes, which is already weak, and only made weaker by the fact that the first study analyzes only a few months of market activity under that new restriction. That being said, both studies do indeed conclude that a link cannot be established with certainty between the policy and house price reduction. > Results from the difference in difference analysis show that the null hypothesis that the policy effect on home prices and days on the market is not significantly different from zero cannot be rejected. This means that it cannot be concluded that the buy-to-let restriction reduced housing prices or increased the days on the market. However, this is one city, not in America notably where the problem is at it's worst, and they did not restrict lower income housing which is the most liable to be outbid on by private investors and rented, so I would hardly say these two studies by themselves utterly disprove anything in the way your dismissive comment implies they do. I don't think a partial restriction on a housing market in one metropolitan area out of the roughly ten-thousand currently on the planet is definitive proof.

by nayuki 2y ago

Nice try. Oh The Urbanity! - "What Happened When This City Banned Housing Investors": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers

throwitaway222 2y ago

It was such a small study that it favorably attracted outsiders that finally got a chance at owning, which gentrified the community. If this was more of a global policy, the study would have reveal massively different results.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I'm not watching that clickbaity nonsense, but I will happily flip through the studies they cite as their sources, and doing so tells me several things. For one, the city did not "ban housing investors," they banned some investors from purchasing a subset of homes, which is already weak, and only made weaker by the fact that the first study analyzes only a few months of market activity under that new restriction. That being said, both studies do indeed conclude that a link cannot be established with certainty between the policy and house price reduction. > Results from the difference in difference analysis show that the null hypothesis that the policy effect on home prices and days on the market is not significantly different from zero cannot be rejected. This means that it cannot be concluded that the buy-to-let restriction reduced housing prices or increased the days on the market. However, this is one city, not in America notably where the problem is at it's worst, and they did not restrict lower income housing which is the most liable to be outbid on by private investors and rented, so I would hardly say these two studies by themselves utterly disprove anything in the way your dismissive comment implies they do. I don't think a partial restriction on a housing market in one metropolitan area out of the roughly ten-thousand currently on the planet is definitive proof.