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

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 684 posts

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#401

Post by 3np »

paxys wrote: post #221
tshaddox wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses Building more houses is generally good too, but it's a bit of a cop-out to blame the whole situation on that. Totally independent of supply concerns, I would argue that it's not great that in so many areas the value of homes seems to be almost entirely divorced from the fact that people need homes to live in . Imagine if a bunch of very wealthy people just…

Thing is if people start hoarding medicine then new companies can pop up and fill in the gap, or existing ones can increase production, making the whole thing pointless to do. Same goes for every other "necessary to life" product. Temporary disruptions will be handled by the market in the long term, and in the worst case government can step in and regulate. Housing is probably the only sector where all the laws and r…

This is missing the point that land is a finite resource and homes aren't fungible. It doesn't help most Californians that more homes can be built in rural Arkansas.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#402

Post by stjohnswarts »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #107
jjice wrote: post #39

It's such a glaring red flag that one of the largest public resources for getting pricing information on housing is also buying and selling that housing. Come on, this is so glaringly abusable that any teenager could tell you what's wrong.

Can you illustrate the mechanism of abuse? Pricing information on housing is readily available to almost everyone, outside of the couple stated that do not mandate it. Zillow makes it easier, but Redfin and realtor.com and countyoffice.org and other websites offer the same information scraped from municipal websites.

The prinicipal of separation of concerns should be all you need for a legal reason for keeping listing companies like zillow from also participating in the market. Clearly they are a company, company's only limitations are they exist to make as much money as possible for share holders and they have no morals, only regulations and laws limit their actions. Therefore they shouldn't be in the business of buying/selling houses if their main goal is to list house values, that is a severe conflict of interest.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#403

Post by conanbatt »

programmarchy wrote: post #256
MiroF wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to control who lives next to you, feel free to buy the neighboring properties.

Thankfully, I don't live in ancapistan, so I can vote instead.

Actually if you live in the bay area, you live in an oligarchy. A great part of the renters in the area cannot vote and thus are not represented in this matter.

If foreigners could vote in San Francisco, the majority of which are renters, it would overwhelmingly crush this position.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#404

Post by MiroF »

dragonwriter wrote: post #397
MiroF wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.

The Fair Housing Act (the part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act you are referring to) exempts owner-occupied buildings with less than five units, so it wouldn't apply to the other unit in an owner-occupied duplex.

I didn't understand the GP to mean they were occupying the duplex. But in that context, it still violates california fair housing law.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#405

Post by sonofhans »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #252
jsnk wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analogy is quite lacking. You should also mention that this medicine rich people are collecting also has dozens of other alternative medicines with hundreds of thousands in volume because other cities exist. Also you should mention that some of these rich people are not rich people at all, but working class people who's lived in a location for decades which has become a desirable location in recent years thanks…

Cites are not fungible, I hate that this always comes up. I have relationships here going back to my childhood, I sometimes visit the grave of the person I am named for, I spend every sunday afternoon cooking and eating with the 97-year-old who took me in and nursed me back to health decades ago. If I move to another city these things aren't coming with. Now you can dismiss these things as inherently less meaningful…

I love your comment, and this way of thinking.

> A necessity of life has become a competitive investment vehicle, and the people most hurt by this are told that it is good and correct and they should accept it by wildly upending their lives for no personal benefit.

I agree also with your other comments that this view is fundamentally inhuman. So many people in this thread are responding with, “Don’t like it? Move!” To the extent that is a humane viewpoint it is either privileged or defeatist. Society is us. We have chosen social policy which turns the fundaments of life into investment strategies for the over-propertied. We can choose differently.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#406

Post by dragonwriter »

ensignavenger wrote: post #175
MiroF wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not a liberal if you're casually violating fair housing law :) Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. These things are about actions, not self-assigned labels.

Is visa status a protected class for rentals in CA/Berkley?

Citizenship and national origin are, as is immigration status (under different laws.) Also source of income.

Renting only to international university affiliates on particular kinds of visas is directly discrimination on the basis of all of citizenship, national origin, immigration status, and source of income, and might also constitute disparate impact discrimination (which California FEHA also covers as well as direct discrimination) on other protected grounds if the direct discrimination wasn't enough.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#407

Post by dragonwriter »

MiroF wrote: post #404
dragonwriter wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fair Housing Act (the part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act you are referring to) exempts owner-occupied buildings with less than five units, so it wouldn't apply to the other unit in an owner-occupied duplex.

I didn't understand the GP to mean they were occupying the duplex. But in that context, it still violates california fair housing law.

Oh sure, rather flagrantly. I count at least four protected traits it discriminates on. (Mentioned in a post in another branch of the thread.)

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#408

Post by dragonwriter »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #381
MiroF wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.

If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit, the rules are different (at least here in Seattle), you can discriminate a lot more legally than you could otherwise. So someone who rents room in their home only to Chinese international students is completely ok (as long as they share living space with the landlord). Not sure what the laws are in California, but federally it’s kosher.

> If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit

A duplex by definition is a building with two separate dwelling units.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#409

Post by polski-g »

bastawhiz wrote: post #6

I recently bought a home. We toured a Zillow home, and I can understand what they were going for and where they failed. We were able to pull up to the driveway, book a tour for that minute, and walk in the front door. It was almost a magical experience compared to the process of finding and going to showings. The listings were clear and thorough. The experience was extremely compelling. The downside: the homes were a…

Zillow prices my house 100k higher than redfin

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#410

Post by BirdieNZ »

999900000999 wrote: post #237
BirdieNZ wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's take this to the extreme, do you think you have a right to set up a commercial kitchen in your home, and set up patio furniture for random people to show up and order take out? You can do this in Japan. Why shouldn't you be able to do this?

Japan doesn't have nearly as many cars per capita. Regards you can't just ignore zoning laws because you feel like it.

We could change the zoning laws so that it isn't illegal, though.

One of the ways you can reduce cars is by zoning to allow greater density, which enables forms of transit which are more space-efficient than cars are. It's a chicken and egg problem, but people will be crying out for better cycle ways and trains and buses if housing becomes more dense.

Also, having commercial spread throughout residential areas reduces the amount of travel between areas, because you don't need to go far to get to the amenities you want.

Post reply on HN