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

Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

pewtrusts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 691 posts

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#211

Post by atlasunshrugged »

jaywalk wrote: post #87
davidw wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article, speaking to your point, is pretty convincing in terms of the data: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin... > The role of institutional investors is still being studied, but the popularity of the narrative strikes at something dangerous: People want a convenient boogeyman and when they get it, they often ignore the structural problems that are harder to combat. Housing undersupply…

Quoted post unavailable.

I disagree, I've seen plenty of people outraged about high-density high-income housing saying that it doesn't have enough low-income options (unsurprisingly, these people are not fans of the low-income housing either). In general, I think people just don't like change- there's likely a reason they moved to that neighborhood and don't want it to be disrupted.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#213

Post by furyofantares »

hotpotamus wrote: post #169
anoonmoose wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's a house in Indiana for $125K Laketon, IN, population 606, had its post office closed in 2010 and, from a quick perusal of Google Maps, probably doesn't have a single traffic light. Doubt there's much public transit out that way. Only 30 miles to a town I might be able to get a job in, though...

Are you not able to work remotely? Or is that too much remote?

Over satellite internet?

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#214

Post by Finnucane »

pishpash wrote: post #103
Finnucane wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently some of these operations have become pretty sophisticated in being able to quickly sort and evaluate listings. Individual buyers don't stand much of a chance against buyers who can write a check as soon as a property hits the market.

You mean Zillow's $880M house-flipping fail? AI isn't smart enough yet.

Zillow wasn't investing for the rental market. It was trying to automate house flipping, a much riskier proposition.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#215

Post by giantg2 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #198
jaywalk wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're never going to win anyone over with the tired "if you disagree with me, you're a racist" BS. Low-income, high-density housing attracts problems. It has literally nothing to do with race. You could guarantee that the high-rise apartment building you want to construct down the street from me would be 100% filled with people who look like me, and I'd still oppose it. Keep your YIMBY nonsense IYBY.

Even if you ignore the racist roots mentioned in a sibling thread (and I maintain that you shouldn’t), we will need low-income housing as long as there are people with low incomes! And it’s best for everyone involved if that housing is commingled in every community rather than being concentrated in one place. It’s well documented that the neighborhood you grow up in has a huge impact on how upwardly mobile you’ll be…

"And it’s best for everyone..."

How exactly is it best for the well-off? I'm curious what pros and cons it would have for them.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#216

Post by kitsunesoba »

renewiltord wrote: post #127
jaywalk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

LOL that is total bullshit. In SF, they oppose high-density high-income housing too. It's total motte and bailey shit. Here's the real algorithm: if density == low: return "This won't solve the problem" if income == low: return "This ruins the neighbourhood character" if density == mid and income == high: return "This is gentrification and soulless coffee shops!" if density == high and income == high: return "This is…

This pretty much nails it. The way I saw it put which feels fitting is, “Everybody who moves into San Francisco wants to be the last person to move into San Francisco”. Of course this isn’t a practical desire in any city, but that doesn’t stop people from trying to make it happen anyway.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#217

Post by daenz »

paxys wrote: post #132
thepasswordis wrote: post #88

I'm so frustrated by some of the conversations people get in around housing. They want to live in the most desirable places on planet earth, and seem to think that we should just abolish the concept of property ownership to accomplish this. What do you guys think happens when you get what you want, and nobody can "own" property anymore? Do you think there is an unlimited amount of single family 3000 square foot homes…

This is such a twisted framing of the issue. No one wants to "abolish property ownership". In fact housing proponents want the exact opposite – give everybody the opportunity to own a house rather than a select few large corporations and investors. Let me build my own house on a piece of land in or near the city, just like my grandparents did just a couple of generations ago. Remove years worth of excessive permits,…

>And no, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" isn't an acceptable answer.

As someone who grew up in a small town, do you understand how condescending this is? People have homes there, have families there, work hard and live decent lives. Just because they live at a pace you're not accustomed to, doesn't make living there some kind of hellish existence. Many would say the same about a filthy, overcrowded, crime-ridden city, of which I've lived in several across the US.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#218

Post by undersuit »

tshaddox wrote: post #176
davidw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show up at any kind of planning commission or city council meeting and you will hear people absolutely UP IN ARMS that building some, say, apartments or townhomes or whatever will "destroy their property values". Even in markets when said property has like doubled in price over the last 10 years with no work from the owner-occupants.

Yes, I understand the desires of that group and the desires of the other group. I’m suggesting that, if we truly must choose only one group to satisfy, it’s not very difficult to decide.

I think we'll choose both! An expansion of Section 5 HUD policies to grant housing to the renters and investment returns to the rich.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#219

Post by jaywalk »

ryukafalz wrote: post #198
jaywalk wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're never going to win anyone over with the tired "if you disagree with me, you're a racist" BS. Low-income, high-density housing attracts problems. It has literally nothing to do with race. You could guarantee that the high-rise apartment building you want to construct down the street from me would be 100% filled with people who look like me, and I'd still oppose it. Keep your YIMBY nonsense IYBY.

Even if you ignore the racist roots mentioned in a sibling thread (and I maintain that you shouldn’t), we will need low-income housing as long as there are people with low incomes! And it’s best for everyone involved if that housing is commingled in every community rather than being concentrated in one place. It’s well documented that the neighborhood you grow up in has a huge impact on how upwardly mobile you’ll be…

I don't know what to tell you. I just don't want to be surrounded by high-rise apartment buildings. I didn't buy a nice house in a nice suburb to stare at giant cement buildings. It's that simple.
Post reply on HN