If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund • Hacker News Board

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

#641

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #526

wwweston wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was a red herring when prop 13 was passed, and is a red herring now. 49 other states don't have prop 13, and yet seniors aren't priced out of their homes. Prop 13 is bad in at least half a dozen ways, but I'm not so sure this problem isn't coming elsewhere or even is absent. It seems to me California may have experienced a leading edge of metro dynamics that are going to come for other states soon. > everyone'…

> Residence-first real estate policy needs to include tax that increases on the number of properties owned (and maybe even more steeply in a supply constrained market). People might try to get around this by forming corporations or trusts that hold max one property each. There is really no need to count how many other properties someone holds. Just do a re-assessment every year and ratchet up the assessed value on al…

If a corporation own a property - that it should pay the full tax, no exemptions. Primary residence clauses must never apply to corporations

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

#642

Post by p_l » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

bennysomething wrote: post #612

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…

They know that the current government planning regulations mean that getting anything built is extremely difficult. They know that due to supply and demand that this makes property a wise investment. Blame planning regulations. I read recently that Japan and new Zealand scrapped various regulations and this led to stabilization / lower of property prices. Near me, someone is sticking up protest letters at bus stops c…

Japan not so much scrapped various regulations as their regulations are just different - and nationwide.

One of the effects of how their zoning classes work is that you don't have "residential-only" zones with no shops or other amenities - instead you have zones defined along the lines of maximum nuisance and with overlapping uses. You have a total of 12 zones, which start from "exclusively low rise residential" that are essentially low density houses that can be also small shops or offices + schools, to exclusively industrial zones that prevent residential or other construction - but it's a spectrum between them.

https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.htm...

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

#643

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

plank_time wrote: post #209

seanp2k2 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve ranted about this before but CA Prop 13 not only makes housing a good investment, but one that you’re extremely incentivized to hold onto forever and never move. Two people can be living in houses next to each other valued around 1.5m, and one of them will be paying 1/10th the tax. If anyone wants to buy a house, they have to first be able to afford the property, so the barriers to entry are so much higher for t…

You’re saying that old people should be driven out of their houses because younger, richer people deserve to live in their houses. I’m sure your feelings will change as you get older.

> You’re saying that old people should be driven out of their houses because younger, richer people deserve to live in their houses.

Believing that tax bills should be equal doesn't imply that; one can believe in equal taxation of same-value property and not think that property tax should ever force people out of property they own. Deferrable-by-default property tax (either entirely or increases above base year) are better than assessment increase limits at avoiding people being forced out, but do less to transfer wealth up the to already-wealthy elites.

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

#644

Post by rajin444 » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #443

admissionsguy wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a purely logical viewpoint, it is a bit hilarious that you consider the objectively most outlandish of these beliefs to be the only non-cranky one. Although it is, admittedly, the most viable one socially.

I don't think truth/outlandishness is all that closely related to whether a particular belief is a crank-y one. For example: horoscopes are fake, but I don't think that people who believe in horoscopes are cranks, per se. Or unfalsifiable claims: plenty of people have crank and non-crank views about things that just don't adhere to proof/disproof. To put it another way: a lot of religious (particularly Christian) vie…

Claims about covid and the election can't be (realistically) falsified by an individual either. You're just disagreeing on whether you should trust a study author / politician more than a priest.

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

#645

Post by hellbannedguy » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

The developer used a Variance to change zoning rules.

Many Bay Area (I only know this market)counties will happily acccept the fee (upwards of $1000), and 99.99% of the time the Variance is not granted. I truly believe counties count on the fees for revenue.

I 've noticed a slight lightening up though.

Gavin Newsome made it much easier to build certain structures. He made in-law units (ADU) easier to build.

What happened is wealthy people took advantage of the laws, and added extra feet to their already huge house. These ADU will not be rented out to low income, or even strangers. The wealthy found a loophole, and used it to remodel their homes. Oh yea, their is still a lot of kissing town officials ass in order to build anything.

Neusome also mandated new apartments, and reasonably hosing, to be built. It is a great move. He slashed a lot of red tape. It's still a pain though. You will have town officials arguing over siding, window placement, gardens, exactly whom will be living in the ADU.

NIMBY's are alive and well in my county. Just about everytime we want to build a homeless shelter; homeowners scream, and officials listen. (Towns are panicking now over homeless. The homeless camps are getting bigger, and Thurston Howell III does not like looking at them. The Supreme court gave the homeless some rights though. Cops can't just harass them to move quite as easily as they did in the past.)

I have watched towns/counties harass homeowners who want to build since the 80's. (I was going to buy a cabin, and I knew the foundation would need to be replaced. Half the cabin was sitting on a redwood stump. I just wanted to put a foundation in, and it wasen't possible due to zoning.)

I don't like our building system. They make the process rediculiously expensive, and complicated (remember you, tge architect, the contractor, will be going to many meetings with town offivials begging to remodel, or build. They love saying no.

It's become a disensentive for middle class homeowners to remodel.

I currently have one fear over new residential building. It's water in the Bay Area. This drought does not feel temporary.

I woukd like to see apartment complexes build adjacent to 101, but the water shortage needs to be addressed.

At this point, I only trust care about very low income, and the homeless. I have never seen so many people without a roof over their heads.

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

#646

Post by neilparikh » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

Many NIMBYs aren't purely financially driven. What they want is for their neighborhood to stay exactly as it was when they moved in, with the same type of people, and same amount of traffic.

Bay Area has plenty of this type. Many of them already have had property value skyrocket (50K -> 2M is not uncommon), so they can just have both (high property values, and preserve their neighborhood exactly as they want it).

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

#647

Post by bendbro » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #639

maxsilver wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory sure, but that's not realistic, it just induces sprawl. Great, you manage to artificially limit parking. So the new housing development moves another 10 miles outside of town, to get away from your artificial limit, and now their mowing down a cornfield out there instead for their build, so they can get the parking residents actually need. If cities want to be a solution to climate change, they have to let…

I’m not opposed to people who want to live out in the boonies, but given the extra cost of infrastructure to service them, they should have to pay for the privilege. They never do though. It’s always the poor neighborhoods close in that subsidize the rich people in the suburbs.

There is no extra infrastructure cost.

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

#648

Post by jhart99 » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

TomVDB wrote: post #474

plank_time wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When houses get sold, capital gains need to be paid. This is nothing new.

Not if the house gets sold by a kid after their parents died. At that point, the capital gains tax basis gets reset. In the current tax climate, we will never sell our houses. It's an amazing way to transfer wealth while avoid capital gains. And if they don't want to sell, the kids keep the original prop 13 tax limitations as well. The current housing policies and tax system is a disaster.

I think this is something that is really under appreciated. When there is inherited property, the cost-basis is reset to when the parents died and the Prop 13 basis is also inherited now if it becomes their primary residence. This is a huge advantage for those people who happen into this sort of situation.

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

#649

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

p_j_w wrote: post #182

duxup wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah what the heck happened there. "same cabal" Everything is a grand singular conspiracy to someone these days. Happens on HN too, every few bad news type post has some accusation that whatever outcome was because of a conspiracy.

The crazy thing is that no grand conspiracy is required, this is just a function (and an entirely predictable one) of the ever increasing levels of wealth inequality that we see. No political "pincher" movement required, it's just people with money finding ways to use that money to make more money. As an aside, this isn't a username I expected to ever see again.

You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. Often attributed to George Carlin.

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

#650

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #630

yongjik wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a house in East Bay, and paying >$10k/yr of property tax. While I don't mind tax in principle, it greatly annoys me that I'm paying much more than my neighbors just because I bought it a few years ago. And why would my opinion change when I get older? Prop 13 won't do shit to lower my taxes, I'll have less income and still be paying through the nose, because the city needs money and half of its residents are pa…

> And why would my opinion change when I get older? Prop 13 won't do shit to lower my taxes It will, in real terms, since the assessment increase limit is the lower of 2% or the rate of inflation each year, guaranteeing that over the long term the assessed value and tax go down in real terms. Which isn’t to say your opinion should change, just that the self-interest equation does.

That's BS. If I pay $10k in property taxes(excl school taxes), that means I cannot invest that money into something more tangible. Thus depriving me of working investments to subsidize wealthier individuals is worse, than steadily increasing taxes.