5 ms·

Why do we allow LLCs to own residential real estate at all, though, unless they're actively working management companies of rental buildings? It seems like the

Why do we allow LLCs to own residential real estate at all, though, unless they're actively working management companies of rental buildings? It seems like the obvious solution to this loophole is to disallow LLCs from owning residential real estate unless they're management companies that take responsibility for renting out and maintaining the building. Preventing dirty foreign money from entering the real estate market is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. Personally, I think it would be tragic to have all the world's great cities to be owned by Davos shitheads and ex-KGB oligarchs and narcobarons. Let's start fighting this now.

charlesdm 12y ago
Because there are valid reasons to own property through an LLC. For example: investing in residential real estate? 1/ What if an investment fund wanted to buy and hold 20 apartments in a building? 2/ What if I wanted to invest in a property, partially backed by debt (hence the need for limited liability)?
- seiji 12y ago
  What if an investment fund wanted to buy and hold 20 apartments in a building? That should be illegal in and of itself. People can't afford apartments because "investors" have bought them all to jack up the prices as rent instead of property. If we had true market-clearing prices for ownership (instead of "the rich get richer and use more money to buy more property to get more money to buy more property"), everybody could be less rentfucked. It's "excessive landlord" syndrome. Why should one guy be allowed to own 40 apartment buildings full of residents who have lived there 20 years? Shouldn't they own their own living conditions instead of being locked into capitalist "I got here 3 years before you, now I own everything, and you are my source of income forever" mindsets?
  - refurb 12y ago
    Not sure i understand. Whether an individual buys a home or an investor buys 20, it doesn't change the price.
    - S4M 12y ago
      I'm not Seiji, but I think he wants to make illegal for both investment companies and private individual to own more than a certain number of apartments, in order to prevent real estate price to go up and up, to which I wholeheartedly agree.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - kyllo 12y ago
      Yes it does make a difference because the wealthy individuals who own many units can drive up the price by restricting supply. They can influence zoning laws and block new high-density construction to protect their profits.
      - refurb 12y ago
        That still doesn't make sense. If you have no one living in an investment unit you're losing money. Could an owner of manu units increase pricing by not renting/selling at market rates? Sure but they'd be losing money.
        mercer 12y ago
        And yet it happens all the time. There are many units in my city in very desirable locations that have been empty for a long time. Often they do temporarily allow people to live there ('anti-squat'), but they can be kicked out at a month's notice and have basically no rights. What makes this so frustrating is that anyone moving to the city has to either pay exorbitant amounts of money for tiny apartments or rooms, or live far out of the center.
  - cynicalkane 12y ago
    In most cities renters are people who can't or won't plausibly finance the unit themselves. Units are expensive and worth a lot.
_delirium 12y ago
That's more or less what Copenhagen's done, though it dates back to some old history rather than being really carefully planned out this way. Most of the central city apartments are structured as either owner-occupied cooperatives, or nonprofit housing associations, and only natural people can buy into (in the former) or rent (in the latter) such property. Furthermore they have to be resident natural people, meaning that you declare the apartment as your primary residence, so that cuts out people buying for investment rather than housing purposes. Or rather you can invest, but only in one unit at a time. It also cuts out speculation from people who don't live in Denmark, unless they lie and say they do. But beyond the risk of being caught directly, declaring Danish residency makes you liable for Danish income tax, which is not something most wealthy foreigners want. As a result, despite Copenhagen getting really popular as a culinary/cultural/etc. destination in the past decade, housing is still cheapish (1-bd ~$800-1100/mo, 2-bd ~$1300-1600/mo).

charlesdm 12y ago

Because there are valid reasons to own property through an LLC. For example: investing in residential real estate? 1/ What if an investment fund wanted to buy and hold 20 apartments in a building? 2/ What if I wanted to invest in a property, partially backed by debt (hence the need for limited liability)?

seiji 12y ago
What if an investment fund wanted to buy and hold 20 apartments in a building? That should be illegal in and of itself. People can't afford apartments because "investors" have bought them all to jack up the prices as rent instead of property. If we had true market-clearing prices for ownership (instead of "the rich get richer and use more money to buy more property to get more money to buy more property"), everybody could be less rentfucked. It's "excessive landlord" syndrome. Why should one guy be allowed to own 40 apartment buildings full of residents who have lived there 20 years? Shouldn't they own their own living conditions instead of being locked into capitalist "I got here 3 years before you, now I own everything, and you are my source of income forever" mindsets?
- refurb 12y ago
  Not sure i understand. Whether an individual buys a home or an investor buys 20, it doesn't change the price.
  - S4M 12y ago
    I'm not Seiji, but I think he wants to make illegal for both investment companies and private individual to own more than a certain number of apartments, in order to prevent real estate price to go up and up, to which I wholeheartedly agree.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kyllo 12y ago
    Yes it does make a difference because the wealthy individuals who own many units can drive up the price by restricting supply. They can influence zoning laws and block new high-density construction to protect their profits.
    - refurb 12y ago
      That still doesn't make sense. If you have no one living in an investment unit you're losing money. Could an owner of manu units increase pricing by not renting/selling at market rates? Sure but they'd be losing money.
      - mercer 12y ago
        And yet it happens all the time. There are many units in my city in very desirable locations that have been empty for a long time. Often they do temporarily allow people to live there ('anti-squat'), but they can be kicked out at a month's notice and have basically no rights. What makes this so frustrating is that anyone moving to the city has to either pay exorbitant amounts of money for tiny apartments or rooms, or live far out of the center.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  In most cities renters are people who can't or won't plausibly finance the unit themselves. Units are expensive and worth a lot.

_delirium 12y ago

That's more or less what Copenhagen's done, though it dates back to some old history rather than being really carefully planned out this way. Most of the central city apartments are structured as either owner-occupied cooperatives, or nonprofit housing associations, and only natural people can buy into (in the former) or rent (in the latter) such property. Furthermore they have to be resident natural people, meaning that you declare the apartment as your primary residence, so that cuts out people buying for investment rather than housing purposes. Or rather you can invest, but only in one unit at a time. It also cuts out speculation from people who don't live in Denmark, unless they lie and say they do. But beyond the risk of being caught directly, declaring Danish residency makes you liable for Danish income tax, which is not something most wealthy foreigners want. As a result, despite Copenhagen getting really popular as a culinary/cultural/etc. destination in the past decade, housing is still cheapish (1-bd ~$800-1100/mo, 2-bd ~$1300-1600/mo).