Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iaalaughlin t1_iuaez5i wrote

Could easily be fixed by our representatives putting a cap on the number of rentals any one entity can own, especially if end chain ownership is where the count takes place at.

I see no reason why any city/county/town can’t simply legislate what they want their housing situation to look like. 70% owned/30% rentals, for example.

Would require minimal overhead, I’d expect. Simple website to list if it’s “approved” as a rental, same place for registering your rental, and a tie in with the SCC for determining ownership.

Blackrock probably wouldn’t like it though.

−6

maybehomebuyeriguess t1_iub0or9 wrote

Further restrict supply, great plan

Central planning always works super well

4

iaalaughlin t1_iub31ha wrote

Not restricting supply in the slightest.

Would actually encourage more supply so corporate landlords can increase the number of rentals they have.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_iudawdr wrote

a 30% cap on rentals is the very definition of a restriction in supply?

1

iaalaughlin t1_iudba8y wrote

A. It can be whatever is needed for the population, as appropriate.

B. If the pie is 1000 housing units, corporate landlords would get 300 of them, leaving 700 for people to purchase and live in. If the corporate landlords want more than 300 units, they can build more units, keep 30% and sell the rest.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iudqovn wrote

still a cap. Still a restriction in supply. Still a thousand year track record of not working.

Good way to make it impossible to rent though, corporate landlords would love this

1

iaalaughlin t1_iue7zzr wrote

The root question is do we want to become a nation of renters, or of homeowners?

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iuft5ys wrote

homeowners absolutely.

But US home ownership rate is very good, 65.5% second highest it's been in history.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop encouraging it, but we should be realistic about how well we are doing, and what the real issue is, which is a shortage in the places people want to live because of single family zoning. A de facto cap is what created this situation

1

iaalaughlin t1_iufxzw0 wrote

You are wrong about it being the “second highest in history”

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

It’s even worse when you look at cities that have a high proportion of landlords that use yieldstar.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iuids2m wrote

so the site I googled was wrong, that'll take me to take the first hit. Your data set is obviously better.

That said, by your data, its still really really high, within a percentage point ex the ninja loan debacle

1

iaalaughlin t1_iuilvgw wrote

The question isn’t a matter of what the nation is doing though.

The question is what is Richmond doing. (Or whatever city you want to do this for.)

Richmond appears to be here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOWNRATEACS051760

Ownership rate is nearly 20 points below national average, and is at ~44%.

That feels troubling, but I’d like more recent data.

So, does Richmond want homeownership for its population or not?

1

Ms-Pamplemousse t1_iubm3zu wrote

I think it's more about making it less profitable to scoop up lots of properties as opposed to not allowed.

1

iaalaughlin t1_iubn9ag wrote

Oooo

We could make property tax 10x for any ownership over the limits decided.

That would work to make it less profitable to scoop up lots of properties.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_iub21ir wrote

Not only would that be insanely complicated it's pretty clearly unconstitutional

0

iaalaughlin t1_iub33c5 wrote

How is it unconstitutional?

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_iudaxk0 wrote

5th amendment. Takings clause. That's a huge thing to push through the zoning restriction cases which were a bit shakey to begin with

1

iaalaughlin t1_iudb0dp wrote

It wouldn’t be taking though. It’s no more a taking than a zoning code.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iudqso5 wrote

It is more like an extreme zoning. Which is a taking. See the relevant jurisprudence.

0