Many of the world’s largest investment firms have launched new funds over the past couple of years aimed at acquiring or building single-family homes to use as rentals. This comes as no surprise considering that the increased cost of buying a home has forced many Americans into being tenants instead of homeowners. Arrived, a young real estate company backed by Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, has just announced its entry into the single-family rental fund space. Arrived currently operates a f
  • SCB@lemmy.world
    82·
    11 months ago

    I absolutely agree that we need to focus significant energy on a more stable housing (not homeowner) market.

    However

    Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.

    This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.

    Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.

    This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you’d need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn’t somehow be abused by flippers.

    I’d also love to see protections baked in for people who purchase prior foreclosure/condemned properties and turn those into marketable/livable homes - that’s an increase in supply and we should encourage it

    What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      5·
      11 months ago

      Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.

      This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.

      Disagree. How does this discourage builders? Afaik, most don’t build with the intent of renting out individually. The intent is to sell. And at least in my high demand area, units are sold well in advance to actually being ready to live in.

      Unless you mean the necessary first step of buying land with an existing home on it. In which case, it’d be easy to add fair exemptions.

      Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.

      This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you’d need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn’t somehow be abused by flippers.

      How so? Most buyers are entering a 30 year mortgage with their finances thoroughly vetted. If you’re saying the first 2 years is extremely risky, maybe those loan regulations need to be revised.

      Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.

      What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I’m sure you’d agree, but that’s a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.

      Of course, building is a necessary component. But it’s touted as the only solution. Realistically, building high density living won’t make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as “luxury” condos that demand a high price. Builders are not motivated to flood the marked to lower their own returns. They will time their projects to trickle out to keep demand high and returns maximized.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        2·
        11 months ago

        Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.

        I didn’t see this, but I would definitely agree with this. Really simple lever to pull, something that can be offset if need be, and will definitely have the impact we’re looking for.

        Realistically, building high density living won’t make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as “luxury” condos that demand a high price

        This frees up housing downstream, and the builders make money by building, not by the eventual value of the home.

        This ties in with point 1 above and why I think it will cut production. Right now there is essentially 0 risk in serving as capital to build housing, and we should be piling on that to build as much as possible.