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

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 684 posts

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#661

Post by bliteben »

pj_mukh wrote: post #606
bliteben wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't the US just have less people with a higher standard of living? Why is "progress" always more. Why do we have to make everything worse by shifting the baseline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_baseline ).

Because a higher standard of living requires more people to come up with the said standard of living (see: history, the shifting of innovation centers to population centers) The degrowth movements garden variety neo-pastoralist misanthropy makes it blind to the fact that more humans (given a good system of governance and rules) is actually an amazing thing.

I hope you do accept there are physical limits to growth that there is no way get around short of colonizing other planets and that we should at least take care of our mother planet.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#662

Post by jdmichal »

tempnow987 wrote: post #628
jdmichal wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So she basically directly sublet part of her apartment, and is surprised the landlord didn't care and still held her responsible? That's exactly the stance the landlord should take in such a situation. Assuming it wasn't just directly a breach of contract of the rental terms to start with, which would even further just protect the landlord. Did she even bother to draft a contract with the subletter? Or was this all j…

She had lease with landlord, and was looking to share the place. She was planning on continuing to live in the unit. This is common in a college towns if the apartment is a 2 bedroom, often you would rent the second bedroom out. Yes, landlord reasonably checked out. They agreed on terms in terms of the monthly amount, utilities etc. New roommate gave some reason to want to get going on getting their stuff moved in or…

Yes, sharing an apartment is typical in college. However, when I was in college, it was typical to go to the management and modify the lease to include the extra person. That way they are at least equally legally responsible for everything, and it gives the landlord a reason to care. The landlord may even run a background check, which may have exposed this issue, since you state this was not the first time.

Regardless, tough lesson to learn on not handing out a key to someone without a contract. I mean, that's a level of trust that I don't even have with my friends, much less someone I'm potentially going to room with. No contract, no keys.

I had a feeling there was more to the story. There probably still is, but I'm satisfied now on how this managed to "just happen". I still don't understand how, after the restraining order, this person then claimed legal residence in order to get your friend removed from her legal residence. I also don't understand why this wasn't immediately a phone call to the police to get this person removed from the property.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#663

Post by MiroF »

lelanthran wrote: post #586
registeredcorn wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response! Honestly, I was going to delete my comment, I felt like I was asking in bad faith, but can't since it had a reply. I guess I see your point. I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.

> I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either. I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money. A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlor…

Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice. These laws exist for a reason, they weren't created to address a problem that didn't exist at the time.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#664

Post by MiroF »

refurb wrote: post #507
MiroF wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only applies to homes owned by a corporation, you are incorrect that most properties are not exempt.

Most properties aren't exempt. Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units. When it comes to single family homes, you are correct that they are eligible to be exempt if they aren't owned by a corporation. However, landlords had to give notice back in 2020 to current tenants for that property to…

> Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.

Nope, only if it is owned by a corporation. AB1482 exemption is standard in leases.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#665

Post by zamfi »

jdmichal wrote: post #627
zamfi wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the part about waiting 18 months for a court date? A legal contract is only as strong as the incentives to litigate it. Doesn't seem likely a contract would've helped, it may even have existed.

If there was a contract, it probably would have helped a lot in the restraining order hearing. Which apparently had no issues happening faster than 18 months?

A restraining order (at least, a temporary one) can be issued without a hearing.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#666

Post by hakfoo »

wwweston wrote: post #621
midhhhthrow wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t finite land. It’s finite voters and the politicians that represent them. In CA, the most crowded state, There are more acres than people! And somehow we still have a housing shortage. You can go out into the middle of nowhere in CA and find houses huddled together 2 feet from another behind a giant wall, like some kind of nazi concentration camp for houses. And the sadest part is that there’s tons o…

> In CA, the most crowded state, There are more acres than people! Oh, well then, we'll just assign each person an acre, problem solved. Which one do you want? Apparently you'll be fine with one -- maybe even two -- in the middle of nowhere, as your comment seems to assume that each has equal value, independent of either natural or social geography.

The problem is that land usage really calls out for the flavour of top-down planning we'd consider Bolshevik in the West.

The "nobody wants to live where no jobs are/nobody wants to build where there's no employees" deadlock can be solved by ensuring new economic engines are deliberately sited in areas that needs a boost. Sorry, Amazon, HQ2 is going in Gary, Indiana.

Eliminating private land ownership would remove many of the worst NIMBY objections. How many people are really "we don't want higher density homes near us" and not "It MiGhT hUrT oUr ReSaLe VaLuE tO bE nEaR pOoRs?!" It might also make it easier to remove some of the worst planning blights-- dead malls and abandoned facilities.

A central planning dictate also makes it that much easier to get commercial/industrial development, housing, and transit all on one page. I'm picturing a proactive model almost like the Chinese "Ghost City" phenomenon, where you're cutting ribbons on subway stations in the middle of swamps today, knowing that Phase III-k of the development plan means in five years the station will be servicing 8,000 commuters per day.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#667

Post by hakfoo »

darkerside wrote: post #633
kag0 wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not the original commenter, but I think they said it > we currently build condos but don't build the public spaces that serve to supplement them and make them comfortable for, e.g., families with kids. you need * several bedrooms * some utility space (for things one would have otherwise done in the garage) * nearby [safe] parks and playgrounds * nearby recreation centers * good schools etc

I think those already exist, perhaps beyond the utility space, and they don't seem to cut it. I don't think the utility room is the difference maker. I actually think the neighborhood feeling and sense of space are much more important.

TBH, I wonder if a good concept would be the condo/apartment complex with a maker space built-in.

I have a single-family house with a garage, and things like woodworking, painting, or even having a 3-D printer are not necessarily things I want in my utility room or garage. They require special fittings or space levels not available when you're trying to fit around a car.

It would also provide a great central hub for people to meet, because projects are a natural thing to socialize about.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#668

Post by lelanthran »

MiroF wrote: post #663
lelanthran wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either. I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money. A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlor…

Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice. These laws exist for a reason, they weren't created to address a problem that didn't exist at the time.

I said:

> they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process

And you replied with:

> Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice.

I can't tell if you are attempting to disagree with that statement of mine or not.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#669

Post by lelanthran »

staticman2 wrote: post #613
lelanthran wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either. I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money. A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlor…

Landlords rarely kick people out without notice because society has made it illegal for them to do so. Your take is naive. Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.

> Your take is naive.

Oh really? What is my "take"?

> Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.

Yeah, but that's not under discussion.

The point I made was that because evictions are so expensive (wiping out years of profit) and long for landlords, they are only ever a last resort.

When you hear right now, as in today, under current laws, sob stories from people who've been evicted successfully, it's highly probable that they're leaving out the actual reason that the landlord just wiped out up to a year of profit just to get them out the door.

No one is wiping out years of income and going into the red just because they want to be mean.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#670

Post by nitrogen »

epistasis wrote: post #658
nitrogen wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This results in a transient population and concentration of wealth, and reduced overall housing security. A mortgage doesn't go up by 10% every year, but my rent sure does.

Why do landlords have the power to raise rents 10% per year? Because there's not enough housing being built. Every unbuilt unit leads to displacement and rising prices. When you say "This results in a transient population," I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "this" but perhaps it's renting at all? If so, the only reason renting leads to "transient" population is the rising rents and displacement caused by lack of…

There is no lack of building. There's an insane amount of single-family and multi-family construction going on where I live, far in excess of natural population growth. But corporate landlords are buying up entire neighborhoods and replacing for-sale signs with for-rent signs. Corporate landlords will squeeze every penny of rent increase they can out of existing tenants, because moving is hard and they've blocked all the alternatives.
Post reply on HN