Wow this is exciting. I tend liberal, but I think this sounds like a bad policy lol. My understanding of the existing research is that rent control tends to decreases the motivation to increase supply, and I think this should do the same
US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
371–380 of 1001 posts
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controversial, but for affordability reasons, there even should be a cap on how many homes an individual can own for rentals. For the sanity in the housing market, members of society need to be driven to participate in other business activities for income/revenue, not rentals.
Why would this help affordability? If you restrict who can operate rentals, that will inevitably shrink the supply of rentals, which will raise rents.
This will release homes on the market, which will lower the prices, causing the rents to drop.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning people from other countries buying home is both more sensible and more practical than this, which is why very many countries do it.
"From" other countries is overly broad and I assume not what you intended. I am actually interested though in the idea of legislating how frequently home owners have to actually be within range of the home, for example. A friend has had a hell of a time with a landlord in Malaysia who's never seen the property.
Someone from another country taking ownership of land in your country is practically an invasion.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
As they should be.
If they then rent these houses out and keep them maintained I don't care that they own them. Of course they should not be allowed to have a monopoly on houses in any area (including indirect monopoly by agreeing to minimum prices with others). Landlord is an important job that someone needs to do for the people who owning their own house is the wrong decision.
Even if they are the leader in percentage point rent raises, and do it 5x as often as every other landlord? And blackball a renter they don't like, not from 1 specific house, but from 10K all at once?
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controversial, but for affordability reasons, there even should be a cap on how many homes an individual can own for rentals. For the sanity in the housing market, members of society need to be driven to participate in other business activities for income/revenue, not rentals.
Landlord, or property management, is a job, same as any other job you might have. The problem is not owning multiple properties, but not paying enough taxes on land. Otherwise, landlords benefit from the free lunch that comes with economic growth and real estate price appreciation, which is true for every homeowners in this country. IF you want affordability? Tax land. Doesn't matter who owns them. Your grandma or wa…
> Landlord, or property management,
This is literally not true.
A landlord owns the property. Property managers operate the property. Sometimes these are the same people (in mom and pop scenarios), but typically and at scale they certainly are not.
Property management is a job. Landlording is not. It is simply owning an asset.
+1 on taxing land though.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controversial, but for affordability reasons, there even should be a cap on how many homes an individual can own for rentals. For the sanity in the housing market, members of society need to be driven to participate in other business activities for income/revenue, not rentals.
This is basically a maximum wage for landlords, bound to start a secret society. IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing. Issue is when they want to politically and artificially raise the value of their property by preventing more housing from being built, so, if you're going to ban something, ban artificial regulations on construction! N…
[flagged]
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
I propose two changes to (try) and broadly solve this: - Additional property tax if you do not live in your home fulltime. This includes vacation homes. - First time, US Citizen, non-corporate homebuyers can get a loan at the federal interest rate. If I were to try and buy the condo I rent, due to interest rates, taxes, and HOA's I would be paying $1000 more per month. At the end of my mortgage I would given the enti…
1) Is already how things work. Every single municipality I've ever seen in the US offers an owner-occupancy tax abatement. 2) Would just inflate home prices.
> 2) Would just inflate home prices.
That depends on demand. If no one wants to buy homes at the prices offered, prices will drop.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controversial, but for affordability reasons, there even should be a cap on how many homes an individual can own for rentals. For the sanity in the housing market, members of society need to be driven to participate in other business activities for income/revenue, not rentals.
This is basically a maximum wage for landlords, bound to start a secret society. IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing. Issue is when they want to politically and artificially raise the value of their property by preventing more housing from being built, so, if you're going to ban something, ban artificial regulations on construction! N…
> This is basically a maximum wage for landlords
Well sure, but it's good to incentivize looking for sources of wages other than (literally) rent-seeking.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLC annual registration is up to $800/yr in CA, including foreign LLC's. I don't think $800/yr for privacy is a "very tiny". Not to mention you would need to pay an owner of record, probably a professional, to have their name on the LLC. EDIT: A quick web search shows that an estimated annual cost of $50-$400 for a registered agent in CA. So the cost is closer to $1k/yr.
I have an LLC registered in Nevada. I neither live there, nor do business there. Most states allow for this - I don't know about California, though.
This is an often conjectured example. California allows for that, but it falls under a foreign LLC registration to get it recognized by the state. It turns out that the annual foreign registration fee matches the in-state one. So this ends up costing more if you want it to be enforceable.
Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds backwards? Density means more units available, which should lower costs. Supply and demand. Rentals in a dense complex are cheaper than standalone rentals or duplexes, townhomes are cheaper than SFH, etc. I don’t think cities should force density, but there’s no reason to go the other way either as long as growth is managed properly in terms of traffic, transit, and infrastructure.
> This sounds backwards? Nope. The ONLY way to get cheaper housing is by reducing the city population. > Supply and demand. Sigh. No. You assume that the demand is fixed. It's not. By building new housing, you _increase_ the demand. And always faster than you can satisfy it. I just love this example: Forbes 2016 - "Tokyo's Affordable Housing Strategy: Build, Build, Build", "The Great Urban Myth: 'Cities Can't Build T…
> Try to find a city where dense housing made it cheaper.
Are there cities where replacing denser housing with single-family homes made housing cheaper?