19% of California houses are owned by investors • Hacker News Board

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#181

Post by fortran77 » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 5:06 AM UTC

zie wrote: post #84

nemomarx wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why'd you set up an LLC for this?

There are a few reasons: * Multi-ownership can be easier. I.e. you can "hide" who owns the house and it disconnects ownership from property records. * People think it adds liability protections. * It might make transferring the house at death easier to control(i.e. LLC rules apply, not state real estate rules) In the case of owning the house you live in under an LLC, the chances of it protecting you from most liabili…

In my case it is the way Historic Tax Credits are accounted for.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#182

Post by lo_zamoyski » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 3:42 PM UTC

bpt3 wrote: post #108

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to fix CA real estate, scrap prop 13, force granny to sell and move to the boonies (to avoid the massively ratcheted property tax she will now be paying), and you’ll have a massive supply of homes for sale. Sounds callous. I would focus first on banning the use of homes as investment and permitting mixed-use, medium- to high- density construction (with something like 15 min city as a point of reference)…

By "banning the use of homes as investment" I assume you mean renting them out. You realize people live in those rental homes, correct? Also, why is it desirable to force all renters to live in an apartment (assuming those are not banned, and people who are unwilling or unable to own their residence are not forced to wander the streets)?

Think systematically. Why are so many renting?

I was talking about private equity/institutional and foreign investors, specifically. An average young family cannot compete against them, especially in a housing shortage.

Don't hide behind the "freedom" defense. Being priced out of housing isn't freedom. Housing is a place to live and to build a life, not an investment.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#183

Post by bpt3 » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 11:30 AM UTC

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #182

bpt3 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "banning the use of homes as investment" I assume you mean renting them out. You realize people live in those rental homes, correct? Also, why is it desirable to force all renters to live in an apartment (assuming those are not banned, and people who are unwilling or unable to own their residence are not forced to wander the streets)?

Think systematically. Why are so many renting? I was talking about private equity/institutional and foreign investors, specifically. An average young family cannot compete against them, especially in a housing shortage. Don't hide behind the "freedom" defense. Being priced out of housing isn't freedom. Housing is a place to live and to build a life, not an investment.

Not being able to buy a SFH isn't being priced out of a place to live.

Home ownership is higher in the US than many other countries, and banning certain groups from participating in a sector will not increase supply.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#184

Post by breakyerself » Sun, Aug 17, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

grafmax wrote: post #166

breakyerself wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd never argue for an unregulated market. Just that we stop regulating them to benefit the few over the many.

Unfortunately deregulating them will do much the same. BlackRock promotes YIMBY because that will allow it to expand its rental property portfolio, effectively generating new cashflows from the poor and middle class to wealthy asset owners. In fact deregulation/regulation is a false choice. Cashflow should go in the opposite direction by raises taxing on the wealthy (including real estate investments) and building pu…

I completely agree we need to tax the rich and build public housing, but we do also need to allow for greater density in metropolitan areas. We have to build more housing and if we aren't increasing density then we're creating sprawl.

Sprawl chews up more and more farmland and forest, lengthens commutes, increases congestion. There's enough subdivisions and single family neighborhoods already.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#185

Post by breakyerself » Sun, Aug 17, 2025, 2:57 PM UTC

bpt3 wrote: post #98

mordae wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. So, like, maybe if rents were not spiking and people were not bleeding money to predatory landlords, maybe, hear me out, maybe they would instead pay someone to build them a house.

2021 called, it would like its performative talking points back. Build more housing, and "predatory" landlords will have more competition. The endless restrictions on residential construction are the root cause, not your envy of wealthy individuals. Side point: There are many people who are in no position to own a home or have one built for them. Where do they live if there aren't any landlords?

Public housing, housing cooperatives.