Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ilanaspax t1_je0fgzi wrote

This is what solving the housing crisis looks like right? Letting national equity firms suck up all the housing supply and then pretending they are doing the city they priced everyone out of a favor. 🤩

34

Byzantium-1204 t1_je0pkdg wrote

They need to enact laws where investment firms or other entities like Zillow are only allowed to own a small %. This is screwing over future home buyers. It’s ridiculous

20

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1ad7q wrote

You realize the share of investors in housing peaked in 2012-13?

And that Zillow famously wound down its home buying after taking significant losses on it, something big enough to make national news last summer?

And that small to midsized landlords make just as much profit per unit as large landlords?

There is only one solution and it's getting New York City to build enough housing so their residents stop moving here. If that happened, Jersey City's high building rate would lead to stable prices just as it did in Minneapolis. Problem is Minneapolis is the largest city in their region and Jersey City is not even close. As for Hoboken they don't build enough either and it's no surprise there are no neighborhoods like Greenville or Bergen Lafayette or McGinley Square still standing there.

14

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_je1fy9q wrote

>There is only one solution and it's getting New York City to build enough housing so their residents stop moving here.

100%, only it needs to be the suburbs as well as the city. The town I grew up in on Long Island is 35 minutes from Penn station, has two rail stops, and zero multifamily development.

17

smrb t1_jegsz81 wrote

or perhaps new york should adjust/waive the city tax rates so people making over 400k don't flee to JC

1

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_jegxbih wrote

If that were the issue rents in NYC would be cratering as all the rich people moved out. Yet NYC rents are much higher than here.

1

Ilanaspax t1_je0rbef wrote

But then how is Fulop going to get all his free home renovations if he’s not bending over backwards for developers?

11

AccountantOfFraud t1_je16e76 wrote

Why stop at investment firms and not landlords who own multiple properties?

10

objectimpermanence t1_je1qqdc wrote

That would be pointless. The vast majority of housing is owned by individuals. And 70% of rental properties are owned by people who own just one or two properties. Source.

The underlying problem is that there is simply not enough housing in the places where people want to live. When demand outpaces supply, prices go up. It’s really simple stuff.

7

AccountantOfFraud t1_je1u64b wrote

How is it pointless?

> Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data.

Seems like you can get more properties on the market by going after those who own more than one.

6

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1xo8z wrote

Rentals are still needed, people who just moved and young students need a place to stay, people getting out of domestic abuse and such need a place to stay, also there should still be an option available for those who don't want to deal with maintenance if we're talking about an ideal society. The real problem is rent growth. If there was enough supply to stop rent growth then not only does renting becomes more appealing, there is also no reason to "invest in housing" at that point driving the investors out naturally.

8

AccountantOfFraud t1_je1ya2o wrote

Go ahead and tell me the group of people who lobby against increasing housing supply

3

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1zhik wrote

No clue what you're getting at. Housing supply should be increased regardless of who lobbies against it

7

AccountantOfFraud t1_je1zta9 wrote

Sure, and at the same time we can tax people who own more than one property to encourage them to sell and add to the supply.

1

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je25hfe wrote

I'd agree, though I'd rather rich homeowners downtown don't get to escape. I would make the tax on "everyone" but add a 500k deduction for primary residence

0

rubensinclair t1_je1z6i5 wrote

If we had a government that worked, we could make it illegal for corporations and foreign investment firms to buy up single-family homes.

4

djn24 t1_je1z4ic wrote

We also need incentives/funding out there to just start mass developing single family homes in less urban areas. New York is pushing through orders that will force communities on the outskirts of urban sprawl to start developing more housing, which should hopefully help to offset this crunch in a few years.

2

LateralEntry t1_je10l7o wrote

I actually am glad to see all the giant skyscrapers going up. As much as everyone complains, we desperately need more housing

10

No-Practice-8038 t1_je1oz98 wrote

We need less of them and more affordable housing. Especially for working poor and lower middle class.

7

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1yjox wrote

There is no theory by which less of them results in lower rents for you and me.

People move here from NYC because of lower income taxes and more space; people also move here from outside the NYC metro because of better job opportunities. Location is the #1 determinant of whether someone moves, not whether there is new housing there. This is why gobs of millionaires live in crumbling old buildings in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.

If you don't build the yuppie fishtanks, the yuppies will simply outbid for your housing. Don't be mistaken and think they'll simply stay away - that's what they thought in San Francisco (and Manhattan and Brooklyn), and then the rich moved into the old housing, because they care about location and proximity to jobs, not whether the housing is new. They can always move in and gut renovate the inside, after all, or the landlord does it to take advantage of the higher rent they can pay.

3

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_je1huw9 wrote

Those buildings are only viable if rents continue to go upwards. If banks had any reason to doubt future trajectory they wouldn’t be financing it.

Nobody invests in something they plan to lose money in, and those buildings are expensive to build and even more expensive in the long run to maintain.

4

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_je1fhah wrote

The equity vultures are feeding at a housing shortage massacre caused by decades of rent control and exclusionary zoning, enacted and preserved by people trying to freeze the status quo.

New York State just defeated a measure that was trying to increase density in transit suburbs. This is what has caused high housing costs.

7

xTheShrike t1_je0k464 wrote

Ultimately this is what is going to happen. The large firms can operate at a loss, push out the smaller landlords, and buy up their properties. This is what happens every single time.

2