What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks • Hacker News Board

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#121

Post by jussij » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 11:45 PM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #33

phkahler wrote: post #18

Housing can not be both affordable AND an investment. Interest rates need to rise, and soon.

I'm not sure you're entirely correct. A lot of people plan on downsizing their housing when they reach retirement age - Move somewhere smaller because you don't need to accommodate the kids any more, and further out of an urban center because you don't need to commute any more. This is a net positive - It frees up more valuable real estate in urban centers for working-age citizens to utilize, and extracts capital fro…

What you are describing is 'owning your own home can be a good long term investment' which is generally true.

However, that is not really a good description of the property investment the OP was referring to.

The OP was describing the situation where one individual owns many properties for the sake of investment.

It is that scenario it is the investor demand for properties that is driving up the property price making them unaffordable.

What's worse is this situation is self-inflating.

As a property investor with a handful of properties, you're in a good position to go to the bank, get a further loan to buy yet another property.

That then drives up the property price, which drives up value of your existing property assets, which then allows you to get an additional loan for yet another property.

This also means, people without that collateral backing have a much harder time getting their first property and when they do they pay a much higher price.

That bubble will continue to grow while interest rates remains low.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#122

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

mike_d wrote: post #50

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Localities can fight back by reforming zoning laws & applying land value taxes instead of property taxes. In many areas of the country it is illegal to build anything but a single-family home. To people familiar with supply & demand this should be an obvious problem.

In almost every part of the US anything except a single family home should be illegal to build. Land is in extreme abundance and multi-tenant properties are almost always built and owned by corporations.

And yes let's make TTL computers too because we're not about to run out of space.

The density is good because it's valuable to be near other things, and density is the only thing that allows more proximity?

Maybe it would help to realize Japan, Korea, and California are all mountainous and prosperous. Mountains helped force good land use (though lately stupidity in California has been beating it).

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#123

Post by PeterisP » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #24

zionic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said you will own nothing, not them. They also said "and you will be happy", which was an order.

At some point revolution will probably become inevitable.

If the poor get their basic needs and entertainment (bread and circuses, as the Romans said) then that's generally sufficient to prevent revolutions. And western societies in general are so wealthy that people can stay (or become) relatively very poor while still getting enough so that they won't really risk their lives in a revolt. They'll complain and protest, sure, but it takes a literal threat to their lives because of hunger or violence to spark a proper revolt. The bottom decile of americans are nowhere near as poor as the poverty that sparked, for example, the Arab Spring revolutions, and very likely (and hopefully) never will be.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#124

Post by SavantIdiot » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

uihududhmd wrote: post #82

SavantIdiot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly is benefiting? I'd love to have this card in my back pocket for debates. Are there specific politicians we can draw-and-quarter over this? Or was your statement just a generic "all politicians bad" rant with no real citations?

US Political donation data https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F10 Article from the guardian about US Senators investments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/19/us-senators-... Investment portfolios of some Indian politicians. I'm not familiar with the politics of India. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/plan/what-do-pol... In general, wealthy of all stripes are invested in real e…

Nice. Great data. We need to hold them accountable, but with so much other stuff on fire in the country (US, at least), it is hard to focus attention.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#125

Post by djbebs » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #27

BitwiseFool wrote: post #12

How can individuals compete against institutional money? Housing prices are skyrocketing in my area and there are stories on the news about investment firms buying up homes and putting them up for rent. What's to stop these well financed institutions from buying up more and more real estate and forcing more people into renting?

Localities can fight back by reforming zoning laws & applying land value taxes instead of property taxes. In many areas of the country it is illegal to build anything but a single-family home. To people familiar with supply & demand this should be an obvious problem.

Whats the difference in thise taxes? Whats to stop those added costs from being passed to consumers?

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#126

Post by danans » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #55

keiferski wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The oddest part about it is how much of a mess the Bay Area is. Typically you’d expect centers of wealth to be excessively clean, filled with expensive architecture and monuments, etc. to the point of being boring. Dubai, for instance. Somehow SV just decided to not bother with that at all.

I have a theory about that. I think it's weather. California has such a mild climate, that you can build a house out of ticky-tacky, skip the insulation, and people won't care because they have a lemon tree growing in their yard. Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes.

> Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes.

Structural stone and brick homes aren't really a thing in the US that much any more.

Beyond seismic issues, when it comes to insulation and efficiency and air/water leaks, homes built using bricks and stone are terrible, because those materials are very difficult to seal.

Most newer homes that have brick or stone exteriors use it only for aesthetics, and do not rely on it for structural integrity or resistance to the environment. Their actual skeletons are wood frames, and the weather resistance is provided by layers of materials over that.

You can build incredibly sturdy homes with wood - not ticky-tacky at all.

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-des...

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#127

Post by mike_d » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:23 AM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #87

mike_d wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries have solved this problem by providing near zero interest loans to individuals purchasing a primary residence, while maintaining higher interest rates for investment properties and corporate purchases.

That's how it works in the USA as well. Mortgage interest for a home you live in will be lower than for investment property. Insurance is cheaper also.

As an individual buyer trying to invest, yes. Large institutions can borrow at much lower interest rates than you and I.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#128

Post by refurb » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

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.

Is that true though? In the Bay Area the cost of new construction keeps going up ($400-500/sq ft for the most basic).

If it costs more to replace a house than it cost to originally construct it I could see the value of the house appreciating.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#129

Post by frongpik » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:29 AM UTC

tibbydudeza wrote: post #3

Ready Player One and the dystopian future of trailers that are packed on top of each other reaching up like sky scrapers.

The dystopian future is towers of sleep boxes that the poor rent to sleep 8 hours a day (so 3 persons per day). Something in the Matrix style. The sleep boxes are poorly built, but thanks to the laws limiting the supply, the workers have to pay thru the nose to rent those boxes. These towers are built on compact lots of land and around it there are 1 sq mi lots with proper houses for the rich 0.01%. This is essentially the exponential growth turning inwards.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#130

Post by webmaven » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:51 AM UTC

goda90 wrote: post #80

mike_d wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In almost every part of the US anything except a single family home should be illegal to build. Land is in extreme abundance and multi-tenant properties are almost always built and owned by corporations.

Third alternative. Multi-family homes owned by co-ops of all the residents.

> Third alternative. Multi-family homes owned by co-ops of all the residents.

In theory, a manufactured home community could also be a co-op, and setting one up would be less capital-intensive than building multi-family homes.

It is worth noting that so far as land-use is concerned, MHCs are significantly denser than typical single-family home neighborhoods (even older, denser ones) due to the small lot and home size, absence of two-vehicle garages, etc. They are comparable to the lower end of multi-family housing density due to the parking lots those are typically surrounded with, though of course multi-family housing that has good access to public transit can be much denser.