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

If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#511

Post by flyingfences »

debacle wrote: post #190
cosmojg wrote: post #32

If only so many people didn't treat land and houses like investments, there wouldn't be such a disastrous hoarding problem. Henry George's Land Value Tax [1][2] seems like an obvious economic fix that would require a large fraction of the population to change how they think about land and natural resources, but most of them are invested in such a way (i.e. owning multiple houses on multiple parcels of land, often wit…

If the population is increasing, then land and, to a lesser extent, housing are investments.

If the population is increasing and population density is prevented from increasing then housing is a good investment.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#512

Post by ljm »

Justsignedup wrote: post #461
JamesBarney wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If you believe that no town homes should be built in the U.S. than you might not qualify as NIMBY. But if you believe that town homes shouldn't be built next to you that's the definition of NIMBY. Of course every instance has a long list of reasons why next to them is especially bad, character of the neighborhood, parking issues, infrastructure, etc.... But the end result of everyone fighting increased density i…

The irony is that density means more people, more homes, more availability. That means more jobs open up and makes the place more lively. More desireable. That means the house property value will go up. They are thinking "will this make the property value go down in the next 5 years"? vs "will this make the property value skyrocket in the next 10 years". We are catering to short-term gains at the expense of long-term…

It also means you can get walkability and nice things like shops and leisure activities without having to buy a car and drive literally everywhere.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#513

Post by screye »

At a philosophical level, I am opposed to the idea of funds being able to hold onto property like a pure monetary asset.

Past the primary residence, individual landlords have some plausible deniability for having a 2nd/3rd home. Maybe they want to return to the house one day. Maybe it is a vacation home. A lot of folks on HN are libertarian and believe in the power of the free market. When supply can be kept artificially scarce, the market stops being free. The Bay Area is a master class in this.

Among developed countries, the US is uniquely incompetent at urban development. They've created unsustainable suburbs and made every attempt possible to destroy cities. What's worse, is that generations of this pattern have led to rosy eyed images of suburbs among the younger generation and a skewed perspective of what cities look like. I live in an international group home, and Americans are unique in their desire to stay in suburbs. The Europeans, South Asians and East Asians would all much prefer to stay near the 'happening parts', and even their choices of suburbs are far denser than 99% of US cities.

Lastly, allowing foreign investors to snatch an essential and scarce resource from the hands of your own citizens is incompetence bordering on malice worth the dismissal of everyone involved. Trump did a lot of things wrong, but the US could learn some protectionism. (I am not even American)

________________________________

I am usually more reserved in my opinion when engaging with people whose intellect I respect. But, this is an exception.

[rant] I truly believe that the NIMBY & fans of American urban planning are as objectively in the wrong as one can be on a topic with as much emotional subjectivity as housing. It is a strong accusation, but people who still vehemently oppose densification of America are brainwashed , blinded by greed or both. [\rant]

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#514

Post by tpmoney »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #330
plank_time wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old person would have sold the house a long time ago because of the rise of their property tax. They wouldn’t be millionaires. They would have to sell their home for a small gain and then rent for the rest of their lives. And since they are old they have no income so they need to keep moving to cheaper and cheaper apartments. Sounds like a great way to live a life, just because younger people feel like they deser…

If their property taxes increased to the point where they cannot afford it, then that means that their property value increased significantly. Excuse me if I don't feel too bad for somebody who just reaped a massive windfall. The "won't somebody think of granny?" argument doesn't really work when advocating for a policy that disproportionately subsidizes non-grannies.

“Reaped a massive windfall” if and only if they sell their house. The problem is unless they’re both looking to sell and move into a lower COL area, that doesn’t do them much good.

My house today is worth 2x what I paid for it a decade ago. Which is great except for the fact that housing costs around here are closer to 3-4x what they were a decade ago. Even if I wanted to sell, I couldn’t find any livable housing for the same price within the same area.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#515

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #478
Justsignedup wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that density means more people, more homes, more availability. That means more jobs open up and makes the place more lively. More desireable. That means the house property value will go up. They are thinking "will this make the property value go down in the next 5 years"? vs "will this make the property value skyrocket in the next 10 years". We are catering to short-term gains at the expense of long-term…

That’s only true up to a tipping point when poor people move in. Parts of Detroit are a great example where poor people are diving down the value of houses around them. People essentially want to be surrounded by people of almost exactly their economic class to somewhat richer. To rich and stores they can’t afford to stay ie gentrification, to poor and you have to move ie white flight.

[deleted]

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#516

Post by SavantIdiot »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #470
JamesBarney wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If you believe that no town homes should be built in the U.S. than you might not qualify as NIMBY. But if you believe that town homes shouldn't be built next to you that's the definition of NIMBY. Of course every instance has a long list of reasons why next to them is especially bad, character of the neighborhood, parking issues, infrastructure, etc.... But the end result of everyone fighting increased density i…

What if you're someone who thinks building stack-and-pack residences is the incorrect response for an investor-manufactured housing shortage?

Then your thoughts are incorrect.

Portland, Ore. is facing a huge housing crisis because single-home zoning prevented increasing density. Without the ability to create more housing on existing land, there is a shortage. It's that simple. They recently passed a law allowing more dense developments, and that will create more supply. There are currently 10 apartment projects in flight in the city, so there is no cabal conspiring to not build housing as you suggested.

Unfortunately, current homeowners love the shortage because it is increasing the value of their homes in ways we haven't seen since ... ever. Which is incredibly short-sighted because the economy will stall without housing, which will crater the boom. Moreso because if they sell, where are they going to move in the same town? They would need to sell and leave town to someplace cheaper. It is amazing to me how many people don't think one more step ahead.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#517

Post by jeffbee »

brightball wrote: post #218
davidw wrote: post #125

Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…

I just experienced something similar to this and it makes me wonder if much of this is just perception. We recently dealt with an out of state builder pushing to have a property that was zoned Neighborhood Commercial to be rezoned to something more flexible so that he could build 49 town homes with 49 parking spots on 5 acres of land. Everybody opposed the rezoning and fought to defeat it. The project would have been…

"Everybody" opposed it except I imagine the process did not gather the input of the fifty families who could live there.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#518

Post by sethammons »

sagarm wrote: post #122
commandlinefan wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a joke, right?

Why is it a joke? Your property value went up significantly, you are in fact a winner. Why should you get to shirk your responsibility to your community?

re-pasting from an earlier comment of mine:

I say it is unjust for a fixed income senior citizen or disability insurance recipient to have their property tax base grow to a point where they must flee their home of decades. The callus answer is to force the person to sell and take their gains and move so a younger person with higher wages can afford their once-home. I think it is unjust to remove an older, less abled, and less employment-opportunitied person from their environment.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#519

Post by [deleted] »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #350
ljhsiung wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only partially true. You pay a *property* tax, which does sometimes have a land component to it, but mostly is a tax on the purchase price of your home. A Georgist-style land tax proposes a tax on solely the land, so a 2000sq-ft lot is the same regardless of a $10mil home or not. This would require an appraiser that regularly re-evaluates the value of the land-- but we already do that! But with homes. Furthermore, a…

Texas (what the original article in the original post revolves around) has the 5th highest property tax in the country and the urban areas have some of the outright highest property taxes in the country on a per city or county basis. This is both a land value tax and property tax.

[deleted]

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#520

Post by OldGoodNewBad »

ryandrake wrote: post #507
OldGoodNewBad wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why artificially? People move into single family dwelling neighborhoods because they have lower crime and better schools. There’s nothing artificial about selecting the best environment for yourself and your family. Is it necessary to artificially editorialize when you’re making what is, at its root, a thinly veiled socio-political point?

I agree. I moved to a suburban single family home neighborhood specifically because I like the environment of a neighborhood with suburban single family homes. That suits me and my family. Others might like low-rise apartment buildings and townhomes, and they should have access to neighborhoods with that type of housing. Others might like high-rise apartments, and those neighborhoods should be available too. Why is i…

As an Oregonian I’m a little disgusted with social activists in Portland couching their impending rape of many neighborhoods across the state as YIMBY when this policy was designed to attack rural Oregon specifically.
Post reply on HN