4 ms·

Ok sure then you are then advocating taking property lawfully obtained and giving it to someone else? And what do you mean by "predatory real estate owners and

by larrys 11y ago

Ok sure then you are then advocating taking property lawfully obtained and giving it to someone else? And what do you mean by "predatory real estate owners and bankers". It's a free market system if you can't afford to live in an area then live somewhere where you can afford given what your job is. Nobody is entitled to a particular job in an area (if they are not paid enough) if they can't (with the pay) afford the rent. I'd love to live many places but I have to consider the practicality. Hawaii would be nice! [1] As far as people getting pushed out because of rents being driven up, the answer to that is not to take property away from lawful owners. Want to "lower the rent"? Government buys at fair market value some apartments or housing how about that? (Sure that will happen, right?) Fine as long as the rightful owners agree and everyone else in the community uses their tax dollars to pay for acquiring that property. Given you are so unhappy about this would you use your tax dollars so that others could live and not have high rent? [1] To clarify not because of housing prices but because of economic opportunity. NYC would be nice also however housing, traffic and so on are out of my comfort zone.

kasey_junk 11y ago
It is an oddity that in the face of someone advocating for "some form of regulation" you immediately jump to property confiscation. Governments dramatically impact the price of the housing market already via any manner of policies such as zoning, regressive tax subsidies on mortgages and even school funding. Not everyone who suggests tweaking the laws is on the vanguard of a communist revolution.
seiji 11y ago
advocating taking property lawfully obtained and giving it to someone else? Yes. Obtaining property "technically lawfully" but actually illegally is not going to survive. It's a free market system Except, corrupt foreign millionaires and billionaires are buying up in-demand US real estate (SF, LA, NYC) as safe houses (see: russian and arab mobsters/politicians/princes buying condos with 3 bulletproof safe rooms) and long term investments (see: chinese family buying Palo Alto homes for their newborn daughter because they know she will go to stanford in 20 years) without living there. They either let the houses sit idle or rent them out at a profit, taking more money out of the local economy. We do not welcome our new foreign non-productive overlords. the answer to that is not to take property away from lawful owners. We need to track down all these "optimistic investment" purchases and safe house purchases then just imminent domain them back to the public who actually participate in the local economy. When people on salary are competing with millionaires and billionaires for rent, they can't win. Entire living centers are being built as "ghost towers." Real estate developers travel overseas and sell every unit in a tower to Chinese buyers 5 years before even breaking ground on the building. Then when the building is complete, it sits 90% empty. The developers get their money and the buyers get to ride on tax breaks, but it does nothing to help the local population. Then, all of that isn't getting into when all this fancy housing is purchased by illegal foreign money. There's a spectrum here. We need to audit all purchase records, pierce the veil of every LLC, and determine if real estate purchases in tight markets are made as an attempt at laundering money. If so, the property is forfeit.
- khuey 11y ago
  Unwillingness to increase supply is a far bigger problem in the bay area housing market than foreign money. The California Legislative Analyst's Office calculated that to maintain the 1980 level of housing affordability(and housing was already expensive in many California of it then) would have required building 100,000 more homes per year, almost all of it in the coastal regions. A few wealthy foreign property owners are a drop in the bucket compared to a structural deficit of 3.5 million homes.
  - seiji 11y ago
    A few wealthy foreign property owners are a drop in the bucket compared to a structural deficit of 3.5 million homes. Yes, you found the exact problem. But, with such a current high demand, all sales end up going to these wealthy few since supply is so restricted. We see it every day. Multi-million dollar condos and houses going for 150% to 200% over asking price (in cash, paid in full at closing, either by wire or by literal black duffel bags full of currency delivered by their proxy lawyer who doesn't ask too many questions). Bidding wars for simple apartments. If you try to buy housing as a worker (by saving from your paychecks to obtain a downpayment), you'll always be out priced by people who can just drop 20x your net worth on a whim—in cash. If only we could tear down the sunset districts and replace them with more modern high density housing plus a real transit system. Heck, if only we could step back and get a real transit system between San Jose and SF at all. It shouldn't take 90 minutes to go 40 miles on dedicated track. A 90 minute commute (if you're not rush-hour bound) is the ultimate killer of morale.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> Given you are so unhappy about this would you use your tax dollars so that others could live and not have high rent? Yes! I'd be happy to. I don't understand why people keep trying this "gotcha" thing when someone suggests tax dollars be used to benefit the needy. Don't assume that everyone is secretly selfish just because you are.

by larrys 11y ago

kasey_junk 11y ago

It is an oddity that in the face of someone advocating for "some form of regulation" you immediately jump to property confiscation. Governments dramatically impact the price of the housing market already via any manner of policies such as zoning, regressive tax subsidies on mortgages and even school funding. Not everyone who suggests tweaking the laws is on the vanguard of a communist revolution.

seiji 11y ago

advocating taking property lawfully obtained and giving it to someone else? Yes. Obtaining property "technically lawfully" but actually illegally is not going to survive. It's a free market system Except, corrupt foreign millionaires and billionaires are buying up in-demand US real estate (SF, LA, NYC) as safe houses (see: russian and arab mobsters/politicians/princes buying condos with 3 bulletproof safe rooms) and long term investments (see: chinese family buying Palo Alto homes for their newborn daughter because they know she will go to stanford in 20 years) without living there. They either let the houses sit idle or rent them out at a profit, taking more money out of the local economy. We do not welcome our new foreign non-productive overlords. the answer to that is not to take property away from lawful owners. We need to track down all these "optimistic investment" purchases and safe house purchases then just imminent domain them back to the public who actually participate in the local economy. When people on salary are competing with millionaires and billionaires for rent, they can't win. Entire living centers are being built as "ghost towers." Real estate developers travel overseas and sell every unit in a tower to Chinese buyers 5 years before even breaking ground on the building. Then when the building is complete, it sits 90% empty. The developers get their money and the buyers get to ride on tax breaks, but it does nothing to help the local population. Then, all of that isn't getting into when all this fancy housing is purchased by illegal foreign money. There's a spectrum here. We need to audit all purchase records, pierce the veil of every LLC, and determine if real estate purchases in tight markets are made as an attempt at laundering money. If so, the property is forfeit.

khuey 11y ago
Unwillingness to increase supply is a far bigger problem in the bay area housing market than foreign money. The California Legislative Analyst's Office calculated that to maintain the 1980 level of housing affordability(and housing was already expensive in many California of it then) would have required building 100,000 more homes per year, almost all of it in the coastal regions. A few wealthy foreign property owners are a drop in the bucket compared to a structural deficit of 3.5 million homes.
- seiji 11y ago
  A few wealthy foreign property owners are a drop in the bucket compared to a structural deficit of 3.5 million homes. Yes, you found the exact problem. But, with such a current high demand, all sales end up going to these wealthy few since supply is so restricted. We see it every day. Multi-million dollar condos and houses going for 150% to 200% over asking price (in cash, paid in full at closing, either by wire or by literal black duffel bags full of currency delivered by their proxy lawyer who doesn't ask too many questions). Bidding wars for simple apartments. If you try to buy housing as a worker (by saving from your paychecks to obtain a downpayment), you'll always be out priced by people who can just drop 20x your net worth on a whim—in cash. If only we could tear down the sunset districts and replace them with more modern high density housing plus a real transit system. Heck, if only we could step back and get a real transit system between San Jose and SF at all. It shouldn't take 90 minutes to go 40 miles on dedicated track. A 90 minute commute (if you're not rush-hour bound) is the ultimate killer of morale.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> Given you are so unhappy about this would you use your tax dollars so that others could live and not have high rent? Yes! I'd be happy to. I don't understand why people keep trying this "gotcha" thing when someone suggests tax dollars be used to benefit the needy. Don't assume that everyone is secretly selfish just because you are.