> so these assholes sink
That's uncalled for. You're letting your envy through.
That's uncalled for. You're letting your envy through.
> That's uncalled for.
Don't care.
> You're letting your envy through.
It's not envy. It's watching rampant real estate speculation, hoarding of properties by landlords--big and small--and the four-generations-and-counting idea that owning housing is the only "stable" asset in this country turn my city into a place where my adult kids can't afford to live, many of my friends have had to move away, and largely the only people populating many of the neighborhoods around me are from the mono-tech-culture.
All while the crisis of housing people who need it yet who have fallen off of the increasingly-shaky bottom rung of society continues unabated.
It's fucking terrible and I don't really have a spare thought for anyone who insists "oh, exploiting real estate, that's how I'm going to make money" is their way out. I reserve the right to think and express the idea that it's morally wrong and that tools that enable that behavior are, by equivalence, also wrong.
(Before someone says: "Well, your city could just zone for more housing." They could, but that a large quantity of "net worth" is wrapped up in people's housing makes that almost impossible from a political perspective. So we wind up with nothing but rented apartments next to loud arterials, safely away from the areas where the people who can afford to live or who have lucked into generationally living in detached housing are living.)
You're also completely discounting the massive volume of affordable housing outside of California and the major cities.
I was just looking for beach homes. You can get a 1600sqft ranch style home in Daytona, FL for $250,000. If I bought one, I suppose that would make me part of the speculation bubble "assholes" that deserve to "sink"?
I don't live on the West coast, and I don't know what y'alls problem is, but it seems to me like everyone is trying to pick and choose who lives where. Just build more.
> only people populating many of the neighborhoods around me are from the mono-tech-culture.
This is showing your California/Seattle/whatever tech bias yourself. By living there, you're a part of this thing you're complaining about! You're literally complaining about yourself. Do you not see the irony?
Sell your house so developers can build apartments on top of it. Or stop renting and paying taxes there. Vote in people that will level every single family home.
Stop complaining about people buying unless you're willing to give up yours too. It's their money.
The house I cited is affordable with a total household income of $70,000. There's a ton of inventory in this range.
Where's your data?
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html
My state's home ownership rate and population is on the rise YoY, as are many others.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/08/amid-a-pand...
It's on the rise nationwide since 2014.
Not everyone lives in a popular city or wants to.
Edit: Zaroth argues against this logic even better [0]
Price limit $250,000, all found in under 60 seconds :
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1100-W-F-St-Mission-TX-78...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2701-Tassajara-St-Edinbur...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6532-Rivers-Bank-Way-Tall...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4035-Taylor-Way-Valdosta-...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/109-Mallard-Lakes-Ct-Lexi...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/720-S-Woodward-Ave-Deland...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1429-Fulton-Ave-Kingstree...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/901-Arbor-Springs-Cir-Gro...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1580-Linden-Ct-Florence-K...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/225-Ashlyn-Creek-Dr-Conwa...
(Literally thousands more...)
People don't have to live in California or Seattle.
Taking Valdosta, GA as an example, the median household income there is $35,085.
> Valdosta State has approximately 11,270 students
> The current population of Valdosta, Georgia is 55,550
Interesting demographics, indeed.
They have a nice downtown, surprisingly big theme park, and lots of stuff for college age kids to do. So it's not a wasteland. It's also only three hours from Atlanta and Apalachicola.
In any case, there are cheaper homes in Valdosta.
https://www.trulia.com/p/ga/valdosta/4189-hamilton-cir-valdo...
Why do you think houses look so much affordable there?
But, I think you're cherry picking a bit. Of course I can pull up and look literally anywhere and find something. Take some of those and try to find enough comparables (and not just one or two) in the same place for there to be a healthy market for people who actually live there and can afford. Good Schools, Safe Neighborhoods, Good Job Opportunities? Even at 250k its still a stretch for people who actually live and work in these areas. Most of the median income in these small towns isn't anywhere near 70k even for working adults. Most people don't have the option or skills to just open a map and pick anywhere to move to and work a comfy remote tech salary job and most of the people who can have left those places for greater opportunity e.g. big cities.
To the extent that investors are buying up perfectly good properties and leaving them vacant then you should blame the investor for taking inventory off the market and draining the supply.
This was happening a lot in Vancouver I believe, with embezzled funds from China—funny money that wasn’t actually seeking a return on investment, just a safe place to hide. It’s a serious problem in some areas and should be stopped.
However an investor buying a property to rent it does not change the supply/demand curves for livable housing in that market. They mostly are lowering the transaction costs of moving into the area by providing rental options.
Investors bidding against each other for houses to rent will only serve to take the profit margin of renting and assign a greater proportion of that value to the current owner of the house.
The investor bidding war is fundamentally limited by the demand in the rental market. Rental rates go down as more properties are converted to rents, and up as more people want to move to the area.
So blame the area for being too desirable, or the renters for being willing to pay too much rent.
The housing investors have some marginal effects on transaction costs and increased market efficiency, but the price level is being set entirely outside the investor’s domain based on the demand of people to actually live in that area, the occupancy rate, and the rate of new construction.
According to Zillow, my home -- which I own -- has gone up in value by nearly 50% in the last three years. Good for me I guess, but not good for people who are trying to rent or buy their first home. And I'm not even sure it's good for me -- long term, I want to live in a neighborhood where not everyone is rich.
In the meantime, your property tax either has gone up or will go up 50% so you're short-term poorer.
Your house would almost assuredly not sell for the 50% price increase that Zillow is claiming. Their goal is to get you to spend time on their website and shop for houses, and somewhat plausible, eye popping numbers help.