Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by noahtallen » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

daenz wrote: post #217

paxys wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I grew up in a very small town (under 5k pop) and did not find this condescending. There are very clear and obvious drawbacks to living there. It’s really not for everyone, evidenced by the fact that 80% of the US population lives in urban areas despite small towns being incredibly cheap.

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

#262

Post by lostapathy » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #194

davidw wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors do not at all have the votes or weight at a local city level in most cases, especially large ones from out of town. Go to a planning meeting about some housing that people are pissed off about because reasons ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32569768 ) and you'll find a whole bunch of your neighbors. It's not institutional investors blocking this stuff, by and large. > they are worried about the value…

How would they vote at all? I’m not aware of any local council that grants votes based upon tax dollars paid or acreage. It’s one person one vote for actual residents. Now lobby dollars are another story. But renters can fix that by actually voting.

They can run/fund NIMBY groups that encourage people to vote their way.

Local to me, we've had a few causes pop up with surprisingly well-run NIMBY efforts opposing them in recent years. The amount of money raised and the signs and slogans are way too good to be the product of the actual locals who speak out on behalf of these groups - somebody else is clearly funding them and doing some marketing.

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

#263

Post by pickovven » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

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…

It's absurd to frame this as some sort of luxury consumption decision. Sure, that might be true for like beach front properties but we're talking about virtually every major city in the country.

People grow up and have social connections in these places. There are jobs there. There are political reasons for moving. But most importantly these are cities, not suburbs. It's just wildly ridiculous to disallow dense housing which would allow more residents and lower housing prices.

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

#264

Post by rngname22 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

dogman144 wrote: post #39

rngname22 wrote: post #8

I really hope that battery technology, EV technology, and self-driving technology lead to a tremendous boom in full-time RV / vanlife popularity and make it a better quality of life than traditional fixed housing and all the people who bought up housing as an investment vehicle see their money go poof. It's like using potable water or the air we breathe as an investment vehicle.

I think it’s a legitimate counterpoint that could force some changes, but other aspects would have to go into it like intentional communities around this technology such that kids can go to schools, taxes are tenable, etc. interesting to consider. I think tax status assumptions and making van life work for a 2-child family are the main blockers. Starts sounding a lot like a high-end trailer park idea too.

The self-driving bit is what makes it tenable. All it takes is some people to offer parking a couple hours outside the city and for your home to drive itself out there when you go to sleep and drive you back to the city as you are getting close to waking up.

Government prevents parking like that? Then just have the vehicle drive around aimlessly while you sleep or hang out, like a limousine. If energy were cheap enough, there'd be almost nothin you could to do stop it.

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

#265

Post by barbazoo » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

nikanj wrote: post #109

criddell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need legislation that discourages housing as investment if we are to maintain housing as shelter. I'm looking forward to hearing how Vancouver's vacant house tax affects their market the next few years. It sounds like a good idea and I'm glad they're running that experiment. It's hard to predict how these things go over time.

They’ve had it for a few years. It hasn’t done squat. Turns out having 10 people and 9 homes remains a problem, even if you enact more policies. They’ve tried everything, except build enough homes. I’m under the impression this is the popular modern across North America

> It hasn’t done squat.

By what metric? I'm not sure that's accurate [0]. It looks like the vacancy rate has seen a steady decline and the money raised ($86.6m) helped Community Housing Incentive Program (CHIP) and Land Acquisition/Development opportunities.

[0] https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-ta...

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

#266

Post by triyambakam » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

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…

I'm not following - how do the cheap houses in Indian relate to the high prices in SF and abolishing property ownership?

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

#267

Post by turtlebits » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

weo3dev wrote: post #235

desperadovisa wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but with all due respect, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" is absolutely an acceptable answer. You're acting like you're entitled to live where ever you want, but the simple reality is that this is not possible. You need to come to grips with that objective fact.

Quoted post unavailable.

No one is forcing you to live in the city you do now. I am probably in a similar income range yet live a People have such high expectations of housing, they are pricing themselves out. I do live in a 60+ year old, 1400 sf house, but that doesn't bother me.

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

#268

Post by rngname22 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #58

rngname22 wrote: post #8

I really hope that battery technology, EV technology, and self-driving technology lead to a tremendous boom in full-time RV / vanlife popularity and make it a better quality of life than traditional fixed housing and all the people who bought up housing as an investment vehicle see their money go poof. It's like using potable water or the air we breathe as an investment vehicle.

Full time van life is unsustainable and selfish. The infrastructure does not and should not exist to make this feasible.

This is a thread about the wealthy investor class buying the literal land and shelter and hoarding it so they can profit off those they lease to. What was that you were saying about unsustainable and selfish?

Fight selfish with selfish.

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

#269

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #131

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…

Yes, the investors are the symptom and not the cause. They are going where the money leads them. However a big problem with institutional investors is that they also institutionalize NIMBYism. They won't just block housing in a select neighborhood, they will block housing everywhere and they put more pressure on the federal government to ensure that housing is protected as an investment class. Both will contribute to…

"Sure, many object to new housing for reasons like "it will change the character of the neighborhood". But many others object because they are worried about the value of their own home going down."

At least in my area, it's all about people wanting the area to remain semi-rural. They generally aren't opposing low density SFH in independent builds. The people in my area are against many development and medium density homes.

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

#270

Post by mabbo » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

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…

The problem is market power. We want a free market in which supply and demand dictate price without manipulation.

But in any given region, there is a fixed supply of property that is slow to change to demand. And there is also a fixed demand- everyone needs a home. If one market participant buys up enough of it, they can choose to raise rents on that entire segment of the market. People need a place to live, and if their job, life, livelihoods are tied up in that specific area then leaving isn't a viable option.

The market participant literally is rent-seeking. They aren't improving these homes. They're raising prices by virtue of owning enough of them to be able to manipulate the market. They can charge more for the same service without providing anyone with more value.

Saying that anyone opposing this is some kind of communist against property ownership is a straw man argument. We just want to see a fair free market.