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

19% of California houses are owned by investors

ocregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#141

Post by kyleee »

tamimio wrote: post #126
breakyerself wrote: post #42

People don't like being told that the problem is a housing shortage.

Not entirely, the major factor is banks' credit creation. When any person can go and take a loan that was created from nothing (literal digits created by your bank), and sometimes based on another "speculated value" of a house you own, you will flood the market with an exponential rise of demand that will ALWAYS be higher than the supply. To solve the housing issue you have to follow the root cause, and always follow…

Instead of all those unrealistic things we should just build enough houses

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#142

Post by bpt3 »

esseph wrote: post #140
bpt3 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To spell it out, they seem to be completely ignoring that those rental properties are not vacant. Instead, they house people, just like they would if they were owner occupied.

20% of market capture does not cause homelessness, but there are many very valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness.

> 20% of market capture does not cause homelessness

Right, which is why trying to link the two is misleading at best.

> there are many valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness

Such as? We seem to agree that the existence of rental units isn't a cause of homelessness.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#143

Post by jimbokun »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #41
jimbokun wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well obviously those would be included. Anything that’s not owner occupied.

The article does state they were included, but is it "obviously" true that they should be? Who is more of an "investor", someone who purchases a primary residence to build equity or someone who purchases a second home to vacation in, spending large amounts of money to maintain it and allowing it to sit empty for long periods of time?

The latter.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#144

Post by esseph »

bpt3 wrote: post #142
esseph wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20% of market capture does not cause homelessness, but there are many very valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness.

> 20% of market capture does not cause homelessness Right, which is why trying to link the two is misleading at best. > there are many valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness Such as? We seem to agree that the existence of rental units isn't a cause of homelessness.

Turbo Greed (acquire all the things) and lack of monopoly protection and enforcement.

If we're going to tackle homeless, we have to remove systems that incentivize the collection of homes as a financial asset. Make more homes by one person or entity less desirable or simply undoable.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#145

Post by cloverich »

tptacek wrote: post #129
grafmax wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet 20% of the market being captured by those who already have a home, while so many go without one, indicates a shortcoming in our society’s ability to distribute resources from those who don’t need them to those who do.

Renting a home out isn't "capturing" the house. Rental housing is a desirable product. Lots of people don't want to own, be locked into a particular house for years to offset transaction costs, and to own all the downside and maintenance risk of the property.

Consider soliciting the opinion of more renters. Plenty of us would happily purchase if prices were more reasonable. Renting out sfh should be rare, imho. The current situation needs many remedies and kicking out sfh as investment vehicles is a very low hanging fruit.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#146

Post by cloverich »

tptacek wrote: post #100

Seems like extremely important context that 91% of these investor-owned houses are owned by entities with 5 or fewer houses: in other words, these are mostly houses that normal mom-and-pop homeowners bought.

It's notable but why is it extremely important exactly? It ultimately causes the same problem.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#147

Post by yojo »

hk1337 wrote: post #131
yojo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m one of those mom and pop owners. The decent ROI on renting out my starter home financed me adding an ADU to the lot, which I also rent out. I’ve owned the house long enough that I’ve had several tenants churn out when they buy their own houses. This doesn’t feel like a policy failure, IMO. Renters have the option to live in a free standing home while they save for a down payment, and “investors” have an incentive…

I don’t have a problem with it. I pointed it out because it seems to show Blackstone hasn’t bought up all the houses like people think. People should rent what they can afford and need. Some people need the house with all its space, some only need an apartment. The big thing is people shouldn’t be spending 50% of their monthly income on rent. It doesn’t help them, their family, or you. Likely, eventually, they’ll hav…

Agreed. I look for tenants that aren’t spending more than a third on rent. At $1300/month, that puts it right on median household income of $48k for the area (this is in rural northern CA).

I have no interest in ever evicting anyone, it sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. I like my tenants, and my rents go up rarely and below market rate/inflation.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#148

Post by tossandthrow »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59
tossandthrow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say it is a lot, but you also say to look in a historic context. So, got any data to present, to say that 19% is a lot historically?

I don't ground my judgement in historical trends but political conviction.

You are free to go and find some statistics if that is what you want to ground your beliefs in.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#149

Post by kasey_junk »

cloverich wrote: post #145
tptacek wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renting a home out isn't "capturing" the house. Rental housing is a desirable product. Lots of people don't want to own, be locked into a particular house for years to offset transaction costs, and to own all the downside and maintenance risk of the property.

Consider soliciting the opinion of more renters. Plenty of us would happily purchase if prices were more reasonable. Renting out sfh should be rare, imho. The current situation needs many remedies and kicking out sfh as investment vehicles is a very low hanging fruit.

Kicking out sfh as investment vehicles makes it harder to sell homes. This a) increases the risk to home buyers and b) makes owning inventory more expensive. Thats likely to make increasing supply untenable.

This low hanging “remedy” is likely to exacerbate the supply issue, not help it.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#150

Post by nikanj »

koolba wrote: post #75
nikanj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We don't have to build enough homes for people if we just force the poorest people to leave the state" Yikes

> "We don't have to build enough homes for people if we just force the poorest people to leave the state" That’s literally what every other state with property taxes assessed on the current value of the home are doing. It’s why retirees move out of their larger homes when they no longer have children occupying the other bed rooms. It’s why you have actual turnover of housing to (generally younger) people that not onl…

It's a financially sensible, totally rational scheme to evict granny.

Why not just build more homes so she can live close to family?

Post reply on HN