- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
Because it creates a second group with large political power that will advocate against new buildings
And that can outbid regular people for houses they can afford.
Last edited:
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
And that can outbid regular people for houses they can afford.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
Okay but two questions
1. isn't what they are willing to pay mediated by how much they can get on the rental market?
as a renter, maybe they turn the basement into an additional unit, maybe add another unit like an ADU if zoning allows,
under the hedge fund I might have 3 units available vs 0 with the boomer homer owner. Why isn't this preferable to me as a renter?
2. how are the interest of the NIMBY homeowner and the hedge fund any different?
- Jul 18, 2012
- 4,447
- 4,748
Need this in Austin.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
see what I mean?
People really think we "need" this totally ineffectual band aid solution.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
Famb I think you should have been more specific in your post, and take issue with specific thing more directly.
- Feb 22, 2007
- 20,237
- 4,230
With an aging boomer eventually the property could come on the market, with a hedge fund it’s never coming on the market
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
i can't afford it either way. So why would I care?
- Jul 18, 2012
- 4,447
- 4,748
Locals are priced out by investment banks turning the city into an AirBNB hub for bachelor and bachelorette parties.
I’d go on but I know your politics are trash.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
You should read the financial reports of these companies, they say openly the biggest threat to their bottom line is the building of more multifamily units. But you really think they will be some YIMBY force in the housing market?
It is like you are confusing homebuilders with these hedge funds and other investors. Builders want more units because that is how they make money, funds want the price high. Restraining supply yields them more money, so they have an incentive to do so.
Plus if you allow supply to fall into the hands of a certain few it shifts the market power to landlords, makes it easier for them to collude, harder to compete, and makes prices stickier.
You are deluding yourself into think that this will always lead to better outcomes.
Yes zoning reform and more building should be the thing policy makers should be doing. But those things are things these hedge funds are scared of too. So I just don't understand or respect this "it doesn't matter" attitude. This seems to reply on a lot of wishful thinking
They aren't
So I can't understand why you are so cool with even more of the sentiment being around
Especially one that can take their fight to the state and federal level with more efficiency. Let Republicans give these dudes a tax write off for vacate units and the problem accelerates even more.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
"It won't benefit me, so why should I care" is simply not a position I can respect.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
of course I understand all that but my point is but I think there interests are the same as homeowners, so functionally what is the difference?
-homeowners don't want more supply.
-Hedge funds don't want more supply.
-homeowners profit when supply is constrained
-Hedge fund profit when supply is constrained.
at least a hedge fund might increase rental unit supply.
So as a renter shouldn't I prefer the hedge fund buying the property? you're the economist, but it seems like the price they pay has to mediated by the market,
so im haivng a hard time understanding why this would lead to crazy increase in price that would constitute thinking this is a "big deal"
I don't really think it would lead to a better outcome, I think both are bad, but the difference in badness seems negligible to me, not a "huge deal"
supply is a "huge deal", Hedge fund ownership vs Boomer NIMBY ownership jsut seems like reshuffling deck chairs on the titanic.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
these conversations almost always take place from the home owners perspective, and the people with the capital to afford a home.
I think it's important to look at it from renters perspective.
I think this stuff is framed as a "huge deal" because it might harm prospective homeowners.
but stuff that harms future renters is just ignored.
Personally I think a world with abundant housing supply would be great for both homeowners and renters.
that's what I support. if you wanna ban hedge funds go a head, I don't care either way unless there's a lot of evidence of harm.
and I come from a family with multiple rental properties so theoretically im harming my future inheritance by promoting increased supply.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
I don't like the mortgage interest deduction it benefits the wealthy way to much and distorts the housing market. I hate housing is seen as such big investment vehicle and wealth builder. Both these things pay a part in shaping views that lean to NIMBYism.
However
Moving the tax benefits of a major tax benefit even more from the middle class to the wealthy
And then denying people access to cheaper lines of credit from home equity loan
Seems like things that might have negative economic consequences
But hey, I can't buy 3br 2.5bath house ranch style, so **** em.
However
Moving the tax benefits of a major tax benefit even more from the middle class to the wealthy
And then denying people access to cheaper lines of credit from home equity loan
Seems like things that might have negative economic consequences
But hey, I can't buy 3br 2.5bath house ranch style, so **** em.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
People are "priced out" by lack of supply.
you could ban all the airBNB's and foreign investment tomorrow and you'd have the same problems.
you don't even understand the basic contours of the issue, so you aren't capable of judging my "politics"
and would advise you to read up on the issue.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,154
- 29,497
do actually think this is my position?
I've written a lot about housing and politics, you think this is an accurate representation of what I think?
- Jul 18, 2013
- 32,880
- 81,665
We need to build build build
To sell them all to corporations
To sell them all to corporations
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
Huh?these conversations almost always take place from the home owners perspective, and the people with the capital to afford a home.
I think it's important to look at it from renters perspective.
I think this stuff is framed as a "huge deal" because it might harm prospective homeowners.
but stuff that harms future renters is just ignored.
Personally I think a world with abundant housing supply would be great for both homeowners and renters.
that's what I support. if you wanna ban hedge funds go a head, I don't care either way unless there's a lot of evidence of harm.
and I come from a family with multiple rental properties so theoretically im harming my future inheritance by promoting increased supply.
I specifically mentioned the consequences for renters. Less landlords means stickier prices, more chance for collusion, and shift market power
There are benefits to owning a home over renting, and these Wall St. Interest want to extract these benefits for their gain. Those benefits are part of the motivation for people to buy homes, this will cause less people to do so, increasing occupancy rates in apartments and hurting renters generally.
People not moving into home buyers keeps them in rental multifamily units longer.
So yes, people not being able to buy homes is a concern for renters.
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
I don't. I think you are sincerely and legitimately concerned about how this ****** up housing market is hurting millions of people.
But you being overly flippant about things makes you come off like it is.
I completely agree that increasing supply from building and renovations is the #1 thing policy makers should focus on.
But I said, your position depends on a lot of wishful thinking.
I think you approach things from the position of "if this doesn't get done, then nothing will get fixed, so why should I care that much about the other stuff". And I approach it from the the position that "things will probably will not be fixed, so it is worth consider what improvements can be made on the margin"
Even though we fundamentally agree on the problem and solution
Last edited:
- Feb 23, 2010
- 23,404
- 26,483
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
I think your argument is based on a bunch of assumptions that I just don't buy right now. I just think that things will more likely cause more bad outcomes.
Homebuilders want more units. You have real estate developers that are building single family homes to rent. Yes, I think the Calida Group is one of them
You have other investors that have no interest in doing so. Pension funds, international investors, hedge funds. They just want to grab up the limited supply already there and coming online, then keep supply from increasing to much.
Plus again, the benefits of homeownership go away for a large chunk of the middle class.
I just don't think allowing more homes to fall into the hands of people saying they think building multifamily housing hurts their bottom line won't have any negative consequences
Last edited:
- Jul 18, 2013
- 32,880
- 81,665
- Oct 23, 2014
- 1,603
- 1,856
- Jul 18, 2012
- 4,447
- 4,748
Hodge twins too busy burying their heads in each other’s crotches to notice.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,191
Mans posting jokes from the TRT versions of Diamond and Silk. 
- Apr 30, 2010
- 69,697
- 106,361
Hodge twins.Similar threads
