7 ms·

Ban corporate ownership of residences. Only individuals, Coops or condominiums. Cap how many rentals an individual can own. The government should also build ma

Ban corporate ownership of residences. Only individuals, Coops or condominiums. Cap how many rentals an individual can own. The government should also build massive amounts of housing. Everywhere of all types - apartments, townhouses, single family. After built transferred to the residents as coops.

garbawarb 9mo ago
It's interesting to think of the second-order effects of this. If these corporations can't invest in housing, they'd direct their money elsewhere. Maybe we'd see a stock market or commercial real estate boom. Maybe a proliferation of new ventures.
- phkahler 9mo ago
  >> If these corporations can't invest in housing, they'd direct their money elsewhere. I think that's why they're buying residential - there aren't any other traditional investments that aren't in a bubble or just have low returns. If you anticipate economic collapse or hyper inflation or whatever, physical assets make sense - when you measure wealth in houses you don't care what the dollar does. Gold people can do without, housing not so much. Whatever happens next, people will need a place to live. OTOH the population collapse is also coming so housing doesn't make much sense beyond 2030 or so.
  - the_sleaze_ 9mo ago
    There will be a squeeze on real estate as the sea level rises and insurance increasingly withdraws from coastal and fire-prone areas.
    - asdff 9mo ago
      I'd expect to see a surge in self insurance. These areas are so valuable already in a lot of cases where rich people are content to pay six figure property tax bills. Especially with cost of construction being a fraction of that property's value.
      - the_sleaze_ 9mo ago
        > a surge in self insurance What is this? Would this just be "putting a little to the side each month" to cover your 12 million dollar loss to Hurricane Micheala ?
        asdff 9mo ago
        It could be as simple as that or something with more structure as well. It won't be a 12 million loss because you own the land already. You are just paying for construction which is a fraction of that value.
    - quesera 9mo ago
      If insurability becomes a crisis, I'd expect it to reduce housing availability and raise prices for competing (insurable) properties. Of course it wouldn't happen in isolation, so there are other massive forces to consider. Maybe wide swathes of formerly-occupied (but now uninsurable) land would sell cheaply enough that middle-income people could build inexpensive semi-disposable vacation cottages, like the old days. GP's assertion of population collapse in five years is a bit extreme for me!
      - phkahler 9mo ago
        >> GP's assertion of population collapse in five years is a bit extreme for me! Check the population pyramid for the US. the baby boomers are moving into the top part (I call the grinder) where they will die out over the next 20 years. At the bottom, we have 20 years of slowly decreasing births, so the bottom AND top are shrinking. Combine that with current policies stopping immigration and I don't know how the US population can be doing anything but decreasing. College admissions people are talking about the cliff (an exaggeration for sure) in enrolment this year and for years to come. People are also getting married closer to 30, and having much less than 2 children per couple.
        quesera 9mo ago
        "Collapse" is a dramatic word for "slow, orderly, decline". :)
- teeray 9mo ago
  I wonder if they could develop some legal apparatus to employ individual straw buyers to circumvent such a restriction.
BeetleB 9mo ago
> Ban corporate ownership of residences. Only individuals, Many/most corporate owners are individuals (as per the linked report). See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208561 > Cap how many rentals an individual can own. Yes. Cap to 0. Until we get data on the breakdown (what percentage of rental homes are by owners who own 1, 2, 3, etc), we don't really know. It won't be easy to determine because a lot of RE investors create a new LLC for each property they own.
- jjav 9mo ago
  > > Cap how many rentals an individual can own. > Yes. Cap to 0. That is saying let's eliminate rentals entirely. If nobody can own a rental, there can be no rentals. Some people do prefer to rent. I wouldn't, but I know people who truly prefer that.
  - BeetleB 9mo ago
    Let's elaborate to: Cap condominiums and detached houses to 0. Apartment complexes is how people should rent. It is, of course, an extreme scenario. As I said, this is absent good data. If we get a sense of the impact one would have if we limit it to 1, supported by data, sure - cap it to 1.
    - jjav 9mo ago
      > Apartment complexes is how people should rent. Why would you get to decide that? Some people like to rent single family homes. Some because they have a large family. Some because that's just what they want. It's not ok to tell them they can't do that and must be forced to live in an apartment.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
tptacek 9mo ago
I love that there are people that can't even conceive of the idea that entities that let out apartments are providing a service to residents. In their view, the natural state of every resident is a desire to own their home. A fun knock-on effect of this policy proposal: it would effectively halt all new development of dense multifamily.
- oldjim798 9mo ago
  Yes, the natural state of every resident is to live in their own home. To be clear by home I don't mean "single family detached house on a suburban street", I mean a place to live with water, electricity, and a roof. Landlords provide no 'service'; they are merely an existence tax. The market already does not build dense multifamily; what is there to halt?
  - tptacek 9mo ago
    You can't fathom that someone might not want an ownership stake in the property they happen to reside in, that there could possibly be a downside to that.
    - oldjim798 9mo ago
      I never said homeownership. Just a place to live thats not owned by a ruthless corporation that spends every day trying to squeeze every penny possible out of the tenant
      - tptacek 9mo ago
        I'm responding to your policy proposal! It's not my fault if that policy doesn't cohere with your preferences!
      - bpt3 9mo ago
        What about a non-ruthless corporation? How do you test that? What about the fact that most homeowners get the vast majority of the money for said purchase from a (presumably ruthless) corporation?

garbawarb 9mo ago

It's interesting to think of the second-order effects of this. If these corporations can't invest in housing, they'd direct their money elsewhere. Maybe we'd see a stock market or commercial real estate boom. Maybe a proliferation of new ventures.

phkahler 9mo ago
>> If these corporations can't invest in housing, they'd direct their money elsewhere. I think that's why they're buying residential - there aren't any other traditional investments that aren't in a bubble or just have low returns. If you anticipate economic collapse or hyper inflation or whatever, physical assets make sense - when you measure wealth in houses you don't care what the dollar does. Gold people can do without, housing not so much. Whatever happens next, people will need a place to live. OTOH the population collapse is also coming so housing doesn't make much sense beyond 2030 or so.
- the_sleaze_ 9mo ago
  There will be a squeeze on real estate as the sea level rises and insurance increasingly withdraws from coastal and fire-prone areas.
  - asdff 9mo ago
    I'd expect to see a surge in self insurance. These areas are so valuable already in a lot of cases where rich people are content to pay six figure property tax bills. Especially with cost of construction being a fraction of that property's value.
    - the_sleaze_ 9mo ago
      > a surge in self insurance What is this? Would this just be "putting a little to the side each month" to cover your 12 million dollar loss to Hurricane Micheala ?
      - asdff 9mo ago
        It could be as simple as that or something with more structure as well. It won't be a 12 million loss because you own the land already. You are just paying for construction which is a fraction of that value.
  - quesera 9mo ago
    If insurability becomes a crisis, I'd expect it to reduce housing availability and raise prices for competing (insurable) properties. Of course it wouldn't happen in isolation, so there are other massive forces to consider. Maybe wide swathes of formerly-occupied (but now uninsurable) land would sell cheaply enough that middle-income people could build inexpensive semi-disposable vacation cottages, like the old days. GP's assertion of population collapse in five years is a bit extreme for me!
    - phkahler 9mo ago
      >> GP's assertion of population collapse in five years is a bit extreme for me! Check the population pyramid for the US. the baby boomers are moving into the top part (I call the grinder) where they will die out over the next 20 years. At the bottom, we have 20 years of slowly decreasing births, so the bottom AND top are shrinking. Combine that with current policies stopping immigration and I don't know how the US population can be doing anything but decreasing. College admissions people are talking about the cliff (an exaggeration for sure) in enrolment this year and for years to come. People are also getting married closer to 30, and having much less than 2 children per couple.
      - quesera 9mo ago
        "Collapse" is a dramatic word for "slow, orderly, decline". :)
teeray 9mo ago
I wonder if they could develop some legal apparatus to employ individual straw buyers to circumvent such a restriction.

BeetleB 9mo ago

> Ban corporate ownership of residences. Only individuals, Many/most corporate owners are individuals (as per the linked report). See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208561 > Cap how many rentals an individual can own. Yes. Cap to 0. Until we get data on the breakdown (what percentage of rental homes are by owners who own 1, 2, 3, etc), we don't really know. It won't be easy to determine because a lot of RE investors create a new LLC for each property they own.

jjav 9mo ago
> > Cap how many rentals an individual can own. > Yes. Cap to 0. That is saying let's eliminate rentals entirely. If nobody can own a rental, there can be no rentals. Some people do prefer to rent. I wouldn't, but I know people who truly prefer that.
- BeetleB 9mo ago
  Let's elaborate to: Cap condominiums and detached houses to 0. Apartment complexes is how people should rent. It is, of course, an extreme scenario. As I said, this is absent good data. If we get a sense of the impact one would have if we limit it to 1, supported by data, sure - cap it to 1.
  - jjav 9mo ago
    > Apartment complexes is how people should rent. Why would you get to decide that? Some people like to rent single family homes. Some because they have a large family. Some because that's just what they want. It's not ok to tell them they can't do that and must be forced to live in an apartment.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

tptacek 9mo ago

I love that there are people that can't even conceive of the idea that entities that let out apartments are providing a service to residents. In their view, the natural state of every resident is a desire to own their home. A fun knock-on effect of this policy proposal: it would effectively halt all new development of dense multifamily.

oldjim798 9mo ago
Yes, the natural state of every resident is to live in their own home. To be clear by home I don't mean "single family detached house on a suburban street", I mean a place to live with water, electricity, and a roof. Landlords provide no 'service'; they are merely an existence tax. The market already does not build dense multifamily; what is there to halt?
- tptacek 9mo ago
  You can't fathom that someone might not want an ownership stake in the property they happen to reside in, that there could possibly be a downside to that.
  - oldjim798 9mo ago
    I never said homeownership. Just a place to live thats not owned by a ruthless corporation that spends every day trying to squeeze every penny possible out of the tenant
    - tptacek 9mo ago
      I'm responding to your policy proposal! It's not my fault if that policy doesn't cohere with your preferences!
    - bpt3 9mo ago
      What about a non-ruthless corporation? How do you test that? What about the fact that most homeowners get the vast majority of the money for said purchase from a (presumably ruthless) corporation?