Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 166 posts

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#101

Post by ctdonath »

Tarsul wrote: post #60
exolymph wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is the land of high variance. We let people crash and burn, but we also let people soar. A society that permits the former is unremarkable — letting people suffer is the default in poverty, and most countries are relatively quite poor. But the latter, letting the tall poppies stand proud with not much more than heckling for their height, is something special, and it's a big part of how we've become…

maybe a and b are connected? You can't have the ultra rich or at least such a discrepancy between the top 10% and the bottom xx% without built-in systemic inequality. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt the US at all if the poorest had more support.

The poorest have tremendous support. US poverty line is at 80th percentile of world incomes, and welfare options ensure nobody has to live under that line. The ultra rich do a great deal (and got there) by making much affordable for lower incomes (Walmart, Amazon for high profile examples).

For that matter, world abject poverty has been largely eradicated. Increasing customer productivity (both individual and aggregate) increases customer buying power - favorable to capitalism.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#102

Post by CalRobert »

Afton wrote: post #39
CalRobert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a basic house is pretty simple. Larry Haun put out a great book with Habitat for Humanity to do it for about $40,000, and irishvernacular.com/ outlines how to do it for €25,000. But we induce scarcity in the housing market because if everyone had a comfortable, decent home, they might not work so hard, would they? Imagine how much less value would be created for assetholders, how much less stuff we would mak…

Is this really how you view it? Like, you think that people are plotting how to induce scarcity in the market so that they will work harder? That doesn't seem like a useful framing of the problem.

I think it's a a convenient accident more than an intentional outcome, but one that established homeowners and assetholders benefit from so it's encouraged.

If nothing else, can you actually imagine a politician celebrating houses going down in price? Picture yourself walking up to a podium and announcing that the average 3 bed 2 bath in San Jose is now only $200,000, and what a fantastic achievement this is and how it will help people who have struggled to afford a home. What reaction do you get?

Homeowners would be crying for blood because, whether they care to admit it or not, when it comes time to sell they want 2+ other people working their asses off and saving every penny they can to just _barely_ be able to put in a bid.

I _am_ a homeowner, albeit of a cheap house, but I'd love to see prices fall because I wouldn't mind a second one. A spot on a couple acres near Portland might be nice, and some of them don't look too bad...

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#103

Post by CalRobert »

fiftyfifty wrote: post #29
CalRobert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a basic house is pretty simple. Larry Haun put out a great book with Habitat for Humanity to do it for about $40,000, and irishvernacular.com/ outlines how to do it for €25,000. But we induce scarcity in the housing market because if everyone had a comfortable, decent home, they might not work so hard, would they? Imagine how much less value would be created for assetholders, how much less stuff we would mak…

Well there's the cost of the land the house is sitting on, in many places with a high cost of living the land is the scarce part.

Land you can build on is scarce, but if we made it easier to demolish existing structures and change use from, say, parking to housing, this would be ameliorated. If you try to buy a single family home in San Francisco and demolish it in favour of 8 apartments you'll find people opposed to this, though.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#104

Post by klipt »

diggernet wrote: post #97
akvadrako wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit confusing compared to prefab homes though, which are mostly made in a factory and assembled on site.

Yes, it is confusing. My brother in law works in that industry, and explained the differences to me this way: Mobile home: Factory built before a certain date in the 1970's (which I've forgotten), with no particular quality standards in place. Manufactured home: The new name for mobile homes, indicating that they have been factory built to clearly defined standards. Considered depreciating personal property by insura…

All buildings depreciate though. It's only land that appreciates.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#105

Post by mrDmrTmrJ »

burntoutfire wrote: post #67
throwaway894345 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. Any jobs that could be exported overseas for cheaper were, and management was rewarded for saving investors so much money by outsourcing those jobs. If we had a stronger collective identity (as with many European countries) we might've felt a kinship or patriotic duty to protect those jobs or otherwise redistribute the wealth garnered by outsourcing. And I'm no…

> I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. It's not about middle class. In other rich countries, everyone, incl. the lower class, can afford to live in apartments, and doesn't have to resort to living in trailers.

Not sure whey you're being downvoted - so I upvoted you.

The US has huge problems with regulation that prevent new housing creation. A lot of that has it's origin in segregation:

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten...

This applies to cities and suburbs. For example in lost of NYC and SF, most buildings would be "illegal" if they were built today.

If you can't change "supply" a "free market" that relies on balancing supply and demand won't balance. It's crazy. And a building issues in US politics.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#106

Post by Arainach »

lowercase1 wrote: post #81
lucasmullens wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? You're against building codes? A lack of building codes is in no way why the US has been successful. They prevent people from literally burning.

GP frames it wrong but building codes make make affordable housing very hard to create in ways unrelated to safety. >most homes built in Des Moines will be required to have a full basement, a single-car garage, and a driveway. Minimum lot sizes for single-family houses will range from 7,500 to 10,000 square feet. Building codes meant to guarantee residents’ safety will now decree their comfort https://www.bloomberg.c…

This conflates zoning with building code. Building codes are things like requiring that your wires be properly attached and connected so that you don't get electrocuted in the shower as your house burns down, or that you have to build enough beams to support the weight of 4 people and all their possessions.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#107

Post by alacombe »

ctdonath wrote: post #76

Table Mound Mobile Home Park https://goo.gl/maps/8h7fxu7WjWsYzTSj9 The Park is about 90 acres. Article claims about 400 homes on site. Much laments the living conditions and abusive corporate ownership. Why do the concerned not facilitate affordable ownership, instead leaving it up to investment firms to provide the service (badly)? Under 2 miles away is a >150 acre parcel available for $6,000,000. Divided by 600, th…

If it does not include a 10-year mastermind bait-and-switch business plan, I doubt any VC/bank will put a dime toward it.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#108

Post by alacombe »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #44

"In the past decade, as income inequality has risen, sophisticated investors have turned to mobile-home parks as a growing market. They see the parks as reliable sources of passive income—assets that generate steady returns and require little effort to maintain." Man, this is just... gross. I realize mortgage bond trading has been a ~$100 trillion dollar windfall since the mighty 80's under Volker (and Liars Poker),…

"little effort to maintain" really means foot the bill to the renters...

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#109

Post by alacombe »

burntoutfire wrote: post #67
throwaway894345 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. Any jobs that could be exported overseas for cheaper were, and management was rewarded for saving investors so much money by outsourcing those jobs. If we had a stronger collective identity (as with many European countries) we might've felt a kinship or patriotic duty to protect those jobs or otherwise redistribute the wealth garnered by outsourcing. And I'm no…

> I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. It's not about middle class. In other rich countries, everyone, incl. the lower class, can afford to live in apartments, and doesn't have to resort to living in trailers.

> the lower class, can afford to live in apartments

Do you mean the same crime ridden inner cities slums ?

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#110

Post by diggernet »

klipt wrote: post #104
diggernet wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is confusing. My brother in law works in that industry, and explained the differences to me this way: Mobile home: Factory built before a certain date in the 1970's (which I've forgotten), with no particular quality standards in place. Manufactured home: The new name for mobile homes, indicating that they have been factory built to clearly defined standards. Considered depreciating personal property by insura…

All buildings depreciate though. It's only land that appreciates.

That is true. I guess what I meant to say is that mobile/manufactured are considered personal property separate from the land, while modular is considered attached to the parcel in the same way that site-built homes are. One result of this is that for manufactured, lenders have much more restrictive terms. Typically 10-15 years max, min 30% down, and a significantly higher interest rate.
Post reply on HN