Live data from Hacker News

19% of California houses are owned by investors

ocregister.com

11–20 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#11

[flagged]

How many generations does it take before someone counts as a "real american"? Or is your "foreign-born" designation hiding that it was always about skin color all along?

I think once they’re citizens, and id say generally foreign born retain the $origin-american but their kids don’t always. I don’t think you typing in “purely a matter of skin color” is writing angry posts into the void that have nothing to do with the OP.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#14
I’m interested in the methodology they use to identify investor-owned homes. Are they comparing known resident addresses to the names on property tax records? How does it work when multiple members of the same family have different last names? It seems fairly common for members of different generations of family (including in-laws) to live in a house that one person owns. How are you distinguishing an investment from a family living arrangement?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#15
To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was):

> 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm.

States with the highest share of investor-owned houses:

> Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%.

States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England:

> Connecticut at 10%, Rhode Island and Massachusetts at 12%, and Delaware at 13%.

Why so low in California (again, I'm baffled that this is "low")?

> the sky-high price tag for single-family homes, the third-highest nationally at $866,100

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many generations does it take before someone counts as a "real american"? Or is your "foreign-born" designation hiding that it was always about skin color all along?

I think once they’re citizens, and id say generally foreign born retain the $origin-american but their kids don’t always. I don’t think you typing in “purely a matter of skin color” is writing angry posts into the void that have nothing to do with the OP.

My reference to number of generations centers around recent guidance from USCIS to de-naturalize citizens based on broadly defined criteria.

The current discourse in this country centers around suspending habeas corpus to mass-deport millions of people. How do you know who's "illegal" without going through judicial process? You look at their race. And in the end, that's always what it's been about.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#17
California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes.

A majority of people own real estate, so they're happy with the status quo. Why would you put up with even the slightest personal inconvenience from added housing, if all it got you was a reduced value of your property?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think once they’re citizens, and id say generally foreign born retain the $origin-american but their kids don’t always. I don’t think you typing in “purely a matter of skin color” is writing angry posts into the void that have nothing to do with the OP.

My reference to number of generations centers around recent guidance from USCIS to de-naturalize citizens based on broadly defined criteria. The current discourse in this country centers around suspending habeas corpus to mass-deport millions of people. How do you know who's "illegal" without going through judicial process? You look at their race. And in the end, that's always what it's been about.

I don’t agree in general that’s how the system works or how most Americans think. But again that has nothing to do with the OP. I thought you were asking about American culture and I wanted to clarify.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#19

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was): > 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. States with the highest share of investor-owned houses: > Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%. States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England: > Connectic…

It's a pretty weird statistic because it ignores the denser forms of housing that are also owned by investors. So while 45% of Californians live in homes they don't own, "only 19% of homes are owned by investors" (the article repeatedly mixes the terms "home" and "house")

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#20

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was): > 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. States with the highest share of investor-owned houses: > Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%. States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England: > Connectic…

That doesn't really qualify it for "not a lot".

Look at it in a historic or idealized context.

Personally I would say that is is a lot, and also too much - people tend to be less indifferent about things they own.

Post reply on HN