Don’t allow companies to own residential properties… it’s that simple…
As a US citizen living in another country and trying to buy a house, you want me to have to change my citizenship to do this? 0.o I’ve lived in Japan for the better part of a decade and am trying to buy a property where, hopefully, my wife and I can live for the rest of our lives. Having to become a citizen in Japan (which does not allow other citizenships except in some very specific cases) is a non-starter for me. I need to be able to freely enter and leave the US in case my family have any issues. Why should I be fucked like this?
They probably mean non-residents instead of non-citizens. Would make more sense that way at least.
I mean, housing issues and challenges in Japan are likely different than in the US.
If Japanese law required you to be a Japanese citizen in order to buy a home, then yeah, I’d expect you to become a citizen to get a home.
Who’s going to make apartment buildings? Isn’t that the best solution towards making more housing, to have compact apartment structures? How do you think those get built?
You could make every one an HOA and have it be condos.
Honestly I don’t think outright prohibition of companies owning buildings is good, but there needs to be a better mix of ownable housing units to rentable ones. There also needs to be better anti-trust enforcement so that three companies don’t own and price control nearly all of the housing in a city (I think there’s maybe six companies in my city that own almost all of the apartment complexes).
They should mandate that a certain subsection of newly zoned housing be owned by people instead of corporations. It would be a much better, much more competitive market for housing if it were possible to own apartments because you could get small time landlords in those buildings as well as people that own their places outright.
It’s literally the most residential of all possible properties, what are you talking about?
While that may be, companies should not be able to have a stronghold on what should be considered a basic human need. Housing is already in pretty short supply, and it’s worsened by the fact that these companies buy a considerable chunk of this short supply and then turn the purchased properties into rentals.
“buying one home and turning it into 4 home reduces the amount of homes” and other fun takes.
The idea being proposed here doesn’t outlaw renting, only corporate ownership of residential property. It means that the people you’re renting from are human beings who will eventually die and either be estate taxed or the house will be sold, rather than a corporation who owns your property until they go bankrupt or until the sun explodes.
Bingo. A lot of current problems get better by:
A) 100% death tax on all money over 100,000,000.00 at time of death.
B) Closing loopholes that allow hiding that kind of money in unnecessary corporate assets or non-charitable trusts.
C) Cracking down on what qualifies as a charitable trust. Want to leave that money to trust that makes the world better, better have numbers to prove it or it gets disolved automatically into other more effective charities.
D) Automatically splitting every corpportation the moment it crosses a reasonable value threshold.
Fuck you you shouldn’t own a goddamn thing with that mentality.
You bootlickers are the reason shit is bad and was always bad.
My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.
The better plan here would be to stop companies from buying residential properties, to incentivized the conversion of commercial properties into apartments, to penalize banks and individuals who are sitting on unused residential properties.
Oh, and wipe out all student loan debt so that younger generations have a prayer of buying a house someday.
There’s also an underlying layer to this problem with a specific type of home owner: the foreign investor. These individuals use American properties to hide their wealth from their home countries. Tax evasion, high ROI, and increased scarcity in every purchase. Homes often go months and years without occupancy, sometimes with minimal furnishings so as not to appear vacant.
I’m not saying foreigners shouldn’t buy homes in America. However, if they do buy a home they should be required to occupy each individual property for a minimum of 6-9 months every year. Otherwise, a heavy tax that exceeds the property’s/ies annual appreciation to encourage occupancy or selling would be ideal.
Which sounds nice, but how do we prove they are or are not actually living there?
I mean, if they lie about their primary residency, that’s a whole set of legal problems they’ve got themselves in
My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.
Yeah, the basic problem with rent control is that it creates the opposite long-term incentive from what you want.
Rentable housing is like any other good – it costs more when the supply is constrained relative to demand, costs less when supply is abundant relative to demand.
If rent is high, what you want is to see more housing built.
What rent control does is to cut the return on rents, which makes it less desirable to buy property to rent, which makes it less desirable to build property, which constrains the supply of housing, which exacerbates the original problem of not having as much housing as one would want in the market.
I would not advocate for it myself, but if someone is a big fan of subsidizing housing the poor, what they realistically want is to subsidize housing for the poor out of taxes or something. They don’t want to disincentivize purchase of housing for rent, which is what rent control does.
Where’s all this housing being built as a result of sky-high rents? If they are being built, they’re being snatched up immediately by “investor” parasites.
What are you referring to? I don’t see all this new housing being built. I only know about three active sites in my city. I also know that our local zoning board has been rejecting applications because of neighborhood character.
I would run to serve but it’s an appointed position. Which yeah not great.
If you subsidize housing you create increased demand for housing, ultimately leading to rent going up for all.
Zoning reform is the solution. Cities are no place for single-family exclusionary zoning and height limits on housing
If you subsidize housing you create increased demand for housing, ultimately leading to rent going up for all.
So, as I said, I’m not an advocate of subsidizing housing out of taxes. I’m just saying that people who are arguing for rent control are arguing for a policy that tends to exacerbate the problem in the long run.
Subsidizing housing doesn’t normally run into that, because it’s normally possible to build more housing.
It is true that that’s not always the case, and one very real way in which that can not be the case is where there have been restrictions placed on constructing more housing. If housing prices are high, the first thing I would look at is “why can’t developers build more housing, and are there regulatory restrictions preventing them from doing so”. It is quite common to place height restrictions on new constructions, which prevents developers from building property to meet that demand, which drives up housing prices (and rents). In London, there are restrictions placed that disallow building upwards such that a building would be in line-of-sight between several landmarks. That restricts construction in London and makes housing prices artificially rise. Getting planning permission may also be a bottleneck. I agree with you that that sort of thing is the thing that I would tend to look at first as well: removing restrictions on housing construction is the preferable way to solve a housing problem.
I remember an article from Edward Glaeser some time back talking about how much restrictions on construction – he particularly objected to the expanding number of protected older, short buildings – have led to cost of housing going up.
How Skyscrapers Can Save the City
Besides making cities more affordable and architecturally interesting, tall buildings are greener than sprawl, and they foster social capital and creativity. Yet some urban planners and preservationists seem to have a misplaced fear of heights that yields damaging restrictions on how tall a building can be. From New York to Paris to Mumbai, there’s a powerful case for building up, not out.
By Edward Glaeser
It looks like it’s paywalled, so here:
Part of the problem with rent control is that it doesn’t subsidize the building of new housing. The times in which housing prices dropped in the USA were typically when a government either opened up land to development, subsidized the building of housing, or built the housing themselves.
My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.
There are critiques against rent control that have persisted for decades that are now seeing a growing body of counter-evidence that it maybe isn’t that bad after all. Hence the resurgence of rent control being suggested as a policy tool. It makes sense that the myth that rent control is bad has persisted for so long - high earning economists (yes, they’re very high earners) who are thus more likely to own rental units have an incentive to publish research showing that policies that harm their rental income are bad, and have less incentive to publish research that shows policies like these benefit the renter over the landlord.
Here’s a great article by J. W. Mason, who has a PhD in economics, who goes over more recent research around rent control. He shows that it’s far more nuanced and less clearly “bad” than right wing economists have been trying to push us to believe.
https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/
This better matches my understanding than OP’s take. It’s not necessarily that certain folks were being disingenuous (though of course with financial matters that’s also common), but more so that rent control is designed to help people closer to the bottom of the financial ladder, and those people are also disenfranchised in other ways, including their results bring unreported or thrown under the rug.
The difference now is that the housing system is so screwed and skewed overall, rent control would likely benefit far more folks than those at the absolute bottom of the financial ladder – that, or the wealth gap is just so large that there’s a huge number of people at the bottom, all roughly equivalent to each other given how rich the rich have become.
I’m not really worried about commercial landlords. Most of them are okay. A few are great, a few are slumlords.
What I’d really like to see is more and denser housing being built, period. And investment in infrastructure like public transit so that places are more accessible, more livable.
Who told you rent control backfired? Cause that’s a lie. It was just never adopted as widely as it should have been, and rich owners always have the ear of lawmakers … the same can’t be said of poor/working poor people.
Capitalist/free market* economists.
Rent control works just fine in a more socialist model, especially when the government is a prime builder of housing without seeking profit, as almost every European country was during the 50s-70s. It’s only when government gets out of house building and everything gets privatisated and for-profit that rent control fails.
The author of that article is Megan McArdle. A quick look at her other articles:
- An article that attempts to shift blame away from media execs and onto consumers, in response to the writers/actors’ protests
- “Higher minimum wages may increase homelessness” (literal article title)
- Says we shouldn’t expect to keep taxing wealthy people
- Wants to reduce medicaid but conveniently doesn’t mention the amount of death poor people will experience as a result of that, using the same austerity justifications we’ve heard in Europe already (that turned out to be bullshit)
I’m sure she has no right wing economics bias lol
Putting all your faith in economists whose sole purpose is to back the current capitalist shitshow that rapes the land and kills the poor is a strange take.
But you do you I guess.
There’s a supply shortage.
You can’t sprawl your way out of this problem, despite Texas’ best efforts. All you do there is create traffic.
The answer is simple. Legalize housing. More triplexes, more quadplexes, more ADUs, 5 over 1s, more of everything. Developers want to fill this demand. They can’t. They’re hamstrung by city ordnances and state laws that often only allow apartments or single family housing. Not everyone wants or needs a separate house. Make rent boring again and the corporations will lose interest.
Eh, I mean there is a record number of vacant homes at the moment. The investor class owns a fuck load of housing that could be actually be used to ya know, house people. I’d bet If a large tax was placed on 2nd homes /income property, there’d be no supply shortage. So many people bought homes for AirBNB, and rent seeking in the last decade that in years past would be being bought by families. I know in my town they’ve been putting up high rise after high rise. Rent still goes up because of (imo) artificial scarcity. Landlords are using software to fix price on rent, banks intentionally trickle out foreclosures to not flood the market, companies with vacant units are not allowed to drop price of rent and keep pricing high because of financing agreements made when the building was built. Most of the luxury apartments that have been built are maybe 30% full. No one wants to live in a duplex/ triplex /multiplex. People want houses, and there are none because companies like Blackstone backed Invitation homes and Chinese companies/ citizens buy them all to rent seek.
The ripple effect from these rate hikes might help drop rents because a lot of commercial loans are ARMs, and when that rate adjusts, landlords are going to feel pain, but they may just pass it on to their tenants and make housing affordability even worse. We’ve allowed too many people to commodify what was once viewed as a necessity, and the single family home is now an investment vehicle for big business.
The real estate market as a whole feels like a giant game of hot potato at the moment. Something has got to give. The America of today is so much worse than the one I grew up in as a result of all the BS we’ve allowed the investor class to do. It needs to get reigned in somehow because imo the American dream is dead as a result.
there is a record number of vacant homes at the moment.
We’re currently close to the record for all time lowest vacancy rates. We’re at 6.3%. The highest (over the past 70 years) was in 2009, at 11.1%. It got down as far as 5% a few times. I downloaded the raw data and it says the average is 7.28%
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N
There’s a popular image of a bunch of Scrooge McDucks sitting on giant inventories of housing but the evidence doesn’t support that. Someone saying, “I saw a bunch of empty houses.” is exactly as logical an argument as a climate denier saying, “It’s been cold all week.” That’s just an anecdote.
The data is very clear on the matter. We don’t have enough housing.
The core problem, which causes that shortage, is that we have conflicting views on what housing is for.
On one hand, we want housing to be a right. On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.
Those are conflicting goals. We need to pick one and be ready to sacrifice the other.
If you want your house to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation. The only way for that to happen is if housing keeps getting more expensive on a real money basis. That’s a fancy way of saying that housing will be a bigger and bigger chunk of income.
Every single policy that reduces the cost of housing also degrades its effectiveness as an investment. If people can get housing any time they want, they have no incentive to pay somebody a bunch of money to someone hoping to fund their retirement by downsizing.
Your suggesting to legalize more housing will destroy the ability of homeowners to make a profit off their homes. Even though I stand to earn huge amounts of money from the appreciation of my own house I would support that, but I’m afraid I’m in the minority. The US has a 65.9% home ownership rate and for most people their home is their single biggest asset. If we address the housing shortage those people will all see their single biggest investment asset drop in value.
I mean, boo hoo?
I bought a house, not because I wanted an investment, but I wanted a place to live. Fuck the CCP, but man were they on the money saying “Houses are for living in,” their current, ironic, housing bubble aside. Houses are homes. You want an investment vehicle, buy stocks or bonds.
If the people who see housing as an investment are outweighed by the people who simply want an affordable home as a right, it’s become an unsustainable and unjust privilege and needs to be rectified.
Also, I think this ignores the larger factors of: poor zoning due to NIMBY-friendly policies at the local level, and corporate greed as companies, not people, buy up supply. Solve these two problems and we don’t have to pick between housing as a right and housing as an investment.
The problem with this plan is that it assumes that we’re only hurting some cigar puffing Wall Street fat cats but, in reality, the pain would be felt much more broadly.
In the US, the majority of people own the home they live in. https://www.propertyshark.com/info/us-homeownership-rates-by-state-and-city/ Those aren’t big corporation or greedy landlords, they’re 50+ percent of the population of each state. Some of those people are billionaires and many of them have below median income. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/
Those super wealthy people that we’re happy to throw under the bus don’t have their wealth tied up in their homes. Their real estate investments tend to be small fractions of their portfolios. The ones that would get hit the hardest are the ones with less than $100k. I’m glad that you’re in a position where you can survive a large financial loss on your house but a lot of people don’t have that luxury.
Any plan that just kills their investments without some way to take care of those people will create a disaster. Maybe we could bump up Social Security somehow? That would involve significant tax increases but it could plug the gap.
Huge swaths of our economy are set up to assume that houses are financial assets. NIMBY policies are largely about maintaining or increasing the financial value of the real estate. The corporations buying up all the housing are kind of a red herring. The US has one of the highest owner occupancy rates in the world. There has been a slight (about 1.6%) in non-own occupied housing and only a fraction of those 1.6% are corporations. So it’s technically true that corporations hold more residential real estate but they hold so little of it that it’s unlikely to be a primary factor in home pricing or availability.
As I said elsewhere, the data is very clear on the matter. We don’t have a lot of empty housing inventory being horded by greedy investors. By any reasonable measure, we have a housing shortage.
On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.
I don’t.
I understand you’re speaking in general terms here but no, i think having housing being tied to investments at all is a terrible idea we’ve just normalized.
The flip side of course we’ve experienced, like 2008 when the market went sour, putting people out of home and destroying retirement funds
I don’t think it’s a good idea either but we live in a society that effectively decided that we do want houses to be investments decades ago. That’s entrenched now and many people bet their life savings on the promise that their house would be a good investment.
If we change that without taking those people into account they’re all screwed. While some rich people would get screwed in that process a whole lot of poor people would get screwed too.
As someone who worked on multi family property development for fifteen years–for the love of God, force the developers to build to a standard. Simply requiring that the landlords pay all utilities would go a long way toward this, since it would incentavise building a better structure.
2015 - rent was $1200
2017 - rent was $1600.
2021 - rent was $2100 average. I was paying $2400.
2023 - rent was $2500 average. I’m paying nearly $3000.
These are all two bedroom, two bathroom apartments in the same city.
I’ve asked college age tenants who lived here how they can do it. They split it with roommates (2bd/2bath - like four ppl living there)
That’s crazy. I’m in a decent sized city and the average rent for a 2/2 is ~$1800. Hell my mortgage is less than $3k/month.
My PITI for my mortgage is $3350/month. Mortgage is $28xx something. It’ll be nice whenever I can get that mortgage insurance off. I was renting an admittedly very nice 2 bed 2 bath apartment for the same before I bought. Now I have a 3x2 1000sqft rambler and know that, while the mortgage is high, it will be lower than rent in the next 5 years.
We should make owning residential, single family real estate for commercial purposes illegal. You own it, you live in it, don’t live in it, don’t own it. That would make gobbling up houses and renting them out unprofitable and force cities to open up multifamily development
That sounds nice in theory but what happens when you want to sell your house?
The only potential buyers would be people who either currently rent or are ready to sell their old house as soon as they buy yours.
What if someone wants to fix it up first? Nope, they can’t do it. It will cut out the flippers but we’ve also just cut out all the renovators and restorers.
We could do something like this (and it may not be a terrible idea) but there will definitely be a cost. If we add that law, all the people who currently own homes (that includes both investors and owner occupiers) will see the value of their real estate holdings drop. In the US, over 65% of people own their homes and for most of them, their home is their single biggest asset. Richer people can diversify more so while this law wouldn’t hurt the 35% who don’t currently own homes, it will disproportionately affect the poorer end of the 65% homeowners (who have proportionately more of their savings tied up in their home).
If we don’t also address that problem at the same time we’ll create a cohort of people who can’t afford to retire because we killed their plan of downsizing when their kids move out and living off the difference.
The only potential buyers would be people who either currently rent or are ready to sell their old house as soon as they buy yours.
What if someone wants to fix it up first? Nope, they can’t do it. It will cut out the flippers but we’ve also just cut out all the renovators and restorers.
Not at all. They can buy and renovate all they want. They just have to sell it afterwards rather than rent it out.
Then you end up with a lot of properties on the market for millions while no one lives in them.
Do you not maintain the things that you own just because there will never be a day where it is worth 10x what you paid for it?
Btw I really want to meet these flippers and landlords who are maintaining their homes. Every time I have dealt with one they are obsessed with making it look like the house is great, not actually maintaining it. Oh wow you sprayed cookie dough smell before showing it, hey check out that black mold in the basement that stupidly has fucking sheetrock.
I live in a rented house, and I’ve rented out a house I owned because I wanted to move and I was underwater on my mortgage. I get where you’re coming from but I do think there should be exceptions. Maybe just capping the rent at 110% of the mortgage payment or 0.5% of the appraised value would be enough to allow some rentals while discouraging people to buy houses just to rent them out.
