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

621–630 of 684 posts

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

#621

Post by wwweston »

midhhhthrow wrote: post #513
3np wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem isn’t finite land. It’s finite voters and the politicians that represent them. In CA, the most crowded state, There are more acres than people! And somehow we still have a housing shortage. You can go out into the middle of nowhere in CA and find houses huddled together 2 feet from another behind a giant wall, like some kind of nazi concentration camp for houses. And the sadest part is that there’s tons o…

> In CA, the most crowded state, There are more acres than people!

Oh, well then, we'll just assign each person an acre, problem solved.

Which one do you want? Apparently you'll be fine with one -- maybe even two -- in the middle of nowhere, as your comment seems to assume that each has equal value, independent of either natural or social geography.

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

#623

Post by bawolff »

sobkas wrote: post #601
bawolff wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that in a capitalistic society, people with capital do better? Colour me shocked. The landlord also takes on risk and responsibility here. Like any business, if they do a shitty job they go broke. If they do a good job, they make bank and expand their business.

They will go broke if they do bad job at extracting money from their renters, not bad job at providing value to them. Also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/landlords-were-never-meant-to-g... , privatization of profits and socializing losses.

Yes, same as any business. If you provide it for free you go bankrupt, if you charge too much you also go bankrupt.

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

#624

Post by Firmwarrior »

chii wrote: post #530
Firmwarrior wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without me they would be without widgets It seems like it'd be obvious, but landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing. They roll in and take housing using their superior resources, then charge rent to access it. In an ideal market, every renter would have the option of being a landlord just like every car lessor has the option of being a car owner. We just need enough housing supply to make investing…

> landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing of course they do - they provide it by being part of the capital flow, which starts at construction. It might not be the same person, but it's a chain of financing that lead to the landlord purchasing the property. Superior resources is just another name for capital. And you need capital to fund the construction. The landlord is just the last chain on this fu…

Man, I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but that's such a ridiculous stretch

I bought a few shares of Pfizer, does that make me a healthcare provider?

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

#625

Post by pyuser583 »

chii wrote: post #528
pyuser583 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! This comes up a lot when people argue in favor reforming how real estate is taxed. When real estate isn’t for sale, it’s “value” is synthetic. I wouldn’t actually sell my house for less than 400% what similar homes are worth. For some people that means the value is 400% that of similar homes. Thankfully the real estate tax folks don’t see it that way.

I actually want tax valuation to work like an offer - the tax man can choose to purchase your home for the valuation you use for taxation (you don't pay the tax in that case), or accept the tax payment. if you value your house too high, you'd pay more tax than you'd need of course, but guarantee that it isn't going to be immediately bought up by the tax man. If you value it too low, you're risking a sale. So the idea…

In practice, wouldn’t this be regressive (tax poor more and rich less)?

Imagine a homeowner who uses public transportation, sends their children to public schools, and and supplements their income with public assistance.

They need to create a price for their home. They live in an area with good public transit and good public schools. These public services figure heavily into the price of the house, pushing it up for tax purposes.

Imagine the same house being owned by someone who sends their kids to private schools and drives everywhere. The quality of public schools and transportation doesn’t affect the value of the house.

In practice, people who are poor are less mobile than people who are wealthy. This tax system favors people who are mobile (and don’t consume public services).

How important is it that you stay at your current residence? The more you make, the easier the move (moving costs money too).

Also, because public assistance doesn’t change with the value of the home, the larger the tax payment, the greater the fraction of the tax bill it is.

This sounds nice, but is ultimately a tax on people who aren’t mobile.

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

#626

Post by kag0 »

darkerside wrote: post #575
zamfi wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That condo prices are staying flat is fantastic news. Now we just need to build condos that are appropriate for all stages of life -- not just young singlehood and coupledom. Building up will not solve the "not enough SFH/townhomes" problem, but it will fix the homeownership problem. And it may help with the former, if there are enough current SFH/townhome owners who would prefer a really nice condo close to work/dow…

> Now we just need to build condos that are appropriate for all stages of life -- not just young singlehood and coupledom. Can you share some ideas about what this would look like?

not the original commenter, but I think they said it

> we currently build condos but don't build the public spaces that serve to supplement them and make them comfortable for, e.g., families with kids.

you need

* several bedrooms

* some utility space (for things one would have otherwise done in the garage)

* nearby [safe] parks and playgrounds

* nearby recreation centers

* good schools

etc

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

#627

Post by jdmichal »

zamfi wrote: post #465
jdmichal wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So she basically directly sublet part of her apartment, and is surprised the landlord didn't care and still held her responsible? That's exactly the stance the landlord should take in such a situation. Assuming it wasn't just directly a breach of contract of the rental terms to start with, which would even further just protect the landlord. Did she even bother to draft a contract with the subletter? Or was this all j…

Did you miss the part about waiting 18 months for a court date? A legal contract is only as strong as the incentives to litigate it. Doesn't seem likely a contract would've helped, it may even have existed.

If there was a contract, it probably would have helped a lot in the restraining order hearing. Which apparently had no issues happening faster than 18 months?

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

#628

Post by tempnow987 »

jdmichal wrote: post #423
tempnow987 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a friend who let someone move in as part of an apartment share. Person NEVER paid them a nickel, never paid landlord anything, claimed they felt unsafe and got a restraining order. It was actually genius. My (female) friend HAD TO MOVE OUT of the house she was renting, the landlord required she still pay rent on the lease. "self-help" (changing locks) was totally out. All this would have been fine I think if sh…

So she basically directly sublet part of her apartment, and is surprised the landlord didn't care and still held her responsible? That's exactly the stance the landlord should take in such a situation. Assuming it wasn't just directly a breach of contract of the rental terms to start with, which would even further just protect the landlord. Did she even bother to draft a contract with the subletter? Or was this all j…

She had lease with landlord, and was looking to share the place. She was planning on continuing to live in the unit. This is common in a college towns if the apartment is a 2 bedroom, often you would rent the second bedroom out.

Yes, landlord reasonably checked out. They agreed on terms in terms of the monthly amount, utilities etc. New roommate gave some reason to want to get going on getting their stuff moved in or measuring things or something, she gave them a copy of the key for that.

That's all it took.

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

#629

Post by tempnow987 »

Ekaros wrote: post #469
tempnow987 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a friend who let someone move in as part of an apartment share. Person NEVER paid them a nickel, never paid landlord anything, claimed they felt unsafe and got a restraining order. It was actually genius. My (female) friend HAD TO MOVE OUT of the house she was renting, the landlord required she still pay rent on the lease. "self-help" (changing locks) was totally out. All this would have been fine I think if sh…

Seems like the problem was the restraining order. Should have fought that one. Blame the part of the system that was true problem.

My sense was that the living situation was in fact untenable (ie, shared kitchen, accusations of theft etc).

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

#630

Post by moltke »

c-linkage wrote: post #269
paxys wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can blame Airbnb, Zillow or whoever else, but the truth is that speculation in real estate and vacation towns have both been a thing for a very long time. If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses, the existing ones will get more expensive no matter what. The solution is out there in front of us but everyone prefers to dance around it.

Change the word "house" to "car" and I think the problem becomes not-so obvious. It's often bemoaned that personal cars are a waste of money and space: they sit idle most of the time, we have to build parking lots to accommodate them and that takes space. It would be so much better if we could just hire cars on demand! But this doesn't scale because the demand is not spread out during the day -- absent carpooling, yo…

Maybe stop bringing in a million people a year.
Post reply on HN