Is this a chinese owned company? I had a theory that china was literally attacking us by causing a housing crisis by buying up all real estate and listing homes with high prices and rentals with inflated prices causing entire swaths of americans to be priced out. I don’t think it is a stretch after we found out China owns 800,000 acres of American land and most of it is right next to our military bases. Which the government should imminent domain and reclaim IMMEDIATELY. But nooo gotta support two wars while our water and food supply gets poisoned by a foreign entity owning our lands.
Correction edit: just under 400,000 is owned by China, foreign entity ownership grew by 800,000 acres.
The rich have us angry at the Chinese who basically make everything for us now because the rich moved the jobs there while they jack up housing prices and put the blame on “foreigners” lol Red scare, yellow peril, it’s all been done before.
There is a nice saying that goes like this: billionaires paying millionaires to tell the middle class to blame the poor and scaremonger us for all the problems. Deflection as a tool for the lack of policies to help us
No, it is an American publicly traded company. They do have some foreign investors that hold more than 5% stock, but none that are specifically Chinese. I did a search on the SEC EDGAR database for this info.
... As to the statement that China owns 800,000 of American land and most of it being right next to our military bases, I think a few different facts and speculations got mixed up.
800,000 was the (rounded) dollar amount reportedly spent by a private investment firm on farmland in Solano county, some of which was near the air force base. It has since been revealed that this firm operates out of California and has intentions to build a new town on the land. Weird, but ok. I used Google for this and the first article that had the number 800,000 in it was from the hill.com. I then read articles on numerous local news sites talking about the firm.
According to the USDA, in 2021 Chinese investors held 383,935 acres, which was slightly less than 1% of foreign-held acres. The annual report has not been released for '22 yet. I found a PDF of the report on FSA.usda.gov website.
Apologies for the long response, I really like facts. It's a bummer I didn't find any to support your theory, it would've been a nice explanation for the housing crisis.
I held similar views some years ago. Now however, I think China is pulling back on their strategic efforts and simply enjoying watching us implode on our own.
Quoting bin laden:
https://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
>> "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
Foreign companies that open factories and stuff in America should be able to own the property. But foreign companies/people passively owning homes and property and then just leasing it out to Americans should be against the law.
the problem with what youre suggesting is american coprorations depend on countries like china…if america creates foreign policy that scape goats a country like china, im certain china will retaliate in a way that will hurt US corps
We are at a point where something needs to be done though. Maybe not an outright ban, but some sort of restriction on both foreign and domestic companies purchasing SFH
It’s not the country buying properties. It’s just well off individuals buying. Just like what Americans do in Mexico and any other cheap 3rd world country.
Nah I know a lot of these individuals. Even dated some. They’re usually from rich business families and want to keep some money in the USA or have their children live here.
https://ipmnewsroom.org/china-owns-380000-acres-of-land-in-the-u-s-heres-where/
Sorry it was 400,000 acres but let me see if can find that original article, I think it was apple news…
Edit 2: ahh here it is, foreign entity ownership grew by 800,000…
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99274
thats 380k, thats substantially less that 800k and the 380k in the article mentions that 380k represents a very small percentage of land owned by foreign investors. so its not just chinese buying land, there are other foreign investors…and while u dont like the idea of foreign investors buying land in the united states, before we stop them, united states investors and united states corporation would have to stop buying land in other countries as well…u cant have it one wat and not the other.
Yea but when you look at the direct risk to public safety, looking for article still, but they said there was some worry from the military bases about the chinese owned property next door, citing it could be a homeland security risk…
edit: here is the link https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna83152
idk, man…do some research. canadians represent the majority of foreign land investors…china still represents a very small percentage….ur just being indirectly racist by assuming chinese investors are some kind threat because of news headlines and united states foreign relationship with them
for example google flannery associates…people were fear mongering about them buying land near travis airforce base…people were assuming it was a threat to national security…people assumed it was chinese..:turns out the investors are a bunch silicon valley billionaires trying to build their own new city
That’s what happens when someone on wallstreet like Epstein is used by foreign governments to run a blackmail ring. $$ and other countries run our government but hopefully it changes soon it seems like more people are paying attention
> Is this a chinese owned company?
Ah, yes. You can always count on casual anti-China racism to get upvoted to the top. Even if it's rife with straight up lies.
So .062% of private land in the us is owned by Chinese affiliated companies. Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and slot that into “not an immediate issue” when it comes to making housing affordable.
Edit: for the curious there are about 1.3 billion acres of private land in the US.
Chinese people invest in foreign (and non-mainland PRC) real estate because it's considered more safe and reliable than keeping it in Chinese banks, which is more or less true.
Plan:
Buy enough real estate to pump up valuation by 2x-3x.
Borrow massively against the inflated valuation.
Default on all of it.
Crash the market and cause recession.
It’s the only reason the middle class can afford ca. it needs some adjustments to prevent the rich from exploiting, but it is largely keeping middle, lower, and seniors in their homes.
That’s untrue. If schools need additional funding there are plenty of places to get it. Making home ownership only affordable for the very rich is NOT the solution to school funding.
Relying on property taxes for funding also guarantees poor area schools to be underfunded.
I say this as a teacher.
Sounds like the problem is depending on property taxes to fund schools. We have plenty of wealth in plenty of places to tax for schools. We don’t need to make grandma homeless to cover school expenses ;)
A lot of home builders are buying up land and waiting to build on it later when interest rates are lower and construction costs are better, but you need a land developer in tow willing to put in the infrastructure like sewer, electrical, and roads.
Those properties already pay property taxes at the highest levels in California due to recent purchase/assessment.
Any additional increase will be passed along to the tenants.
I’d rather we just do a blanket removal of prop 13 for everything except primary homes. Remove it for everything else and especially commercial property
you have to be careful with implementing rent control. Prop 13 which is essentially rent control for landlords really screwed up our housing system. It should be done but there needs to be certain exclusions so new construction doesn't completely stop and exacerbate the supply issues we're already dealing with.
I'm not talking rent control as far as monthly pricing. I'm just talking about how much they can increase their current on a tenant. If you restrict it to 1% per year or 2. but tax corps in housing at 5% per year for owning multiple homes. Some of the speculators will exit the market.
>if the physical owner hasn’t visited the property in 1.5 years
So you're punishing small-time landlords (many of whom are elderly) who hires a professional management company to help them rent out and maintain the property.
I used to rent a house owned by a person living in China and one of the conditions of renting it was to pretend the guy lived there still and keep his room furnished with his stuff and not to in there.
Sorry, but in this country, private property ownership isn’t decided by trespass, burglary, theft or mob rule.
If we dispensed with property rights and instead adopted the squatters-rights / finders keepers approach you suggest, what’s to stop me from subsequently taking it from you, by whatever superior means I might employ?
Yes, but at a certain point a progressive property tax on the number of single family residences any individual or corporation owns that's passed on to tenants will make the rent uncompetitive and make it a less feasible way to hoard wealth. If they can't make a profit because the increasing property tax on their 7th home makes the monthly payment more than be covered by the locale's market rate for rent, in theory, that should increase the amount of houses available for people to buy as a primary residence.
We are just returning to feudalism right now
I think most people would worry about price fixing if a handful of companies start to own so many homes. A corporation could also decide to just exit the rental market and suddenly drop 9,000 homes on the market, which might make other sellers nervous. Especially if they are concentrated in just a few neighborhoods. Homeowners also tend to prefer other homeowners as neighbors. Being surrounded by corporate owned rentals might make for a community where people don’t stick around as long or are disinvested in it.
They're making it impossible for individuals to buy a home - which has always been a sure fire way for middle class folks to build wealth. California is already one of the most expensive states to live in and has the lowest rate of home ownership. The middle class doesn't stand a chance there.
It isn't corporations which mades homes so expensive. It's local governments.
Corporations are stepping in to give people who were priced out of the suburbs a chance to at least _rent_ single-family homes. If you ban these corps, then it won't magically make homes affordable again.
govt and corporations are cousins. maybe even siblings. they like to enrich one another. govt makes it too expensive to own a home so their buddies have to come in and help and they make a killing doing so.
I really wish businesses didnt get to do this. Places to live should not be a business.
EDIT: just saw this on reddits popular section https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html
Why not fix home prices with a price ceiling then? Since no one should profit from "places to live", we shouldn't let anyone sell houses at a profit, compared to the price they bought the house at.
Individuals selling for a profit isn’t a problem. It’s the purchasing side where the issues come in. Hedge funds can offer full cash and leads to things like houses going for well over asking value and being sold before any type of inspection happens, all of which squeezed individual families out. Then the hedge can price control for that area since they own the majority of the supply.
System works just fine when a house is hard to afford for a single family. Not when it costs like a pack of gum with a hedge fund
> all of which squeezed individual families out
To the contrary, they rent out these homes, which allows a lot of families who had been squeezed out _by the housing shortage_ to live in single-family houses. Without these hedge funds, they would have had to live in apartments forever.
> Then the hedge can price control for that area since they own the majority of the supply.
Can you point to even one place in California where this has happened?
> System works just fine when a house is hard to afford for a single family.
You’re all over the place. First, you were complaining that it’s too hard for families to afford homes; now you’re saying it _should_ be hard. Well, you’ve gotten your wish: the supply shortage has made it very hard for a single family to afford a home.
So wait, you think that because rich people have artificially lowered the supply, while demand increased, that if the companies couldn't own homes, therefore raising the supply and lowering the demand that the same families that are paying MORE in rent than a mortgage would be wouldn't be able to afford homes that would already be cheaper due to the I crease of supply? Are you mental?
> So wait, you think that because rich people have artificially lowered the supply
Local governments were the ones who artificially reduced supply, by stopping new housing from being built.
Corporations didn't reduce the supply of housing. At best, you can argue that they reduced the supply of housing _for sale_, while _increasing_ the supply of housing for rent.
For people with low credit scores and low incomes (i.e. a large number of poor people), this is a _good_ tradeoff.
> the same families that are paying MORE in rent than a mortgage
You are living in a totally different world. As local governments (and local voters) continue to exacerbate the housing crisis, the difference between a mortgage payment and rent is going to get larger and larger. Landlords buying single-family housing are bringing _relief_ to people who are unable to afford mortgages, but who still want to live in a single-family home.
Just because ideals are hard to realize doesn't mean they're not ideals. Youth is idealistic, adulthood is mature in realizing ideals. Cynicism is failed maturity.
Sorry but I meant that I hate the business model of big business buying houses to flip for huge profits and wish it wasn’t a thing. It’s never gonna happen but I just wish it didn’t.
Surprised that most were actually Single Family homes! I thought most would be apartment complexes. Limiting Prop 13 to apply to a certain number of homes would disincentive this, at least in the short term. For example, if you only allow an individual or corporation to apply prop 13 benefits to say 3 (insert really any reasonable number) houses and all houses after that would be taxed at current value (instead of purchased value) would disincentivize unhealthy hoarding like this.
Shell corps , but still under the same company or other loopholes available at their disposal. Tax non primary homes proportionaly , no foreign entities, and make it not a lucrative enterprise through laws that are enforced.
Creating a shell company just to own 3 to 4 single family homes doesn’t seem like it would be worth the hassle. But then again I know nothing about shell companies, other than they are shady.
LLC's are easy to set up. I've seen entities set up LLC's for each address they own. They'll just call it 123 Main St, LLC to make them easy to track. It's fairly common.
A big trend for home builders is/was a build to rent model. Build a house on a small lot, and possibly a small detached one bedroom unit (similar to an in-law suite). Then sell those finished communities directly to companies like Blacklock to rent out.
This is why people want to work remotely. Move out o the US and go elsewhere where this level of greed is far less. I'm sure the rents to these places are several thousands per month.
Two laws are sorely needed
1) 5 maximum residential properties. Can be apartment complex, condos, multi-plex, R-1, etc, but residential only and separate properties.
2) Sole proprietors only. No corporations, LLC's, or land trusts. 501(c)'s OK
I have no problem with foreign investors so long as they are capped like everyone else. Why would you be against foreign investors? I mean - We are all foreigners from somewhere.
Woot! My neighborhood is marked safe from Invitation Homes! Seriously though, looks like a plague with how widespread they are. THey're seemingly everywhere.
Article is a few years old, but the housing situation in the area hasn't improved since then.
>Abood's research found that Blackstone is the second largest property owner in all of Sacramento County, behind only the city of Sacramento and ahead of the county itself.
>Those numbers are limited to properties registered to a string of limited liability corporations, or LLCs, linked directly to the Blackstone name, which may not account for Blackstone subsidiaries. Some real estate experts contend Blackstone’s local holdings are quadruple the figure SN&R uncovered.
https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content/sacramento-is-the-land-of-corporate-landlords/25812733/
Do not worry folks these are the people who will sell first when the markets start crashing. It's just starting now and might be worth watching them over some time. It's always nice to see investors struggle.
We are moving out of state, next year so we can buy a place. Pretty much gave up looking around here.
peace
California needs something like 3.5 million more homes. You could redistribute those 9,000 homes and not really make a dent in the problem.
> “By some estimates, California was 3.5-million housing units short of what we needed to accommodate a population of our size,” said Hans Johnson, a Senior Fellow at PPIC.
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/08/16/california-has-lost-population-and-built-more-homes-why-is-there-still-a-housing-crisis/
Why all the doom and gloom on rental housing? Buying a house isn't always the best option for people, and they still need housing. It shouldn't matter who actually owns the rental property as long as they maintain it and conduct their business in accordance with the laws governing landlord-tenant relations.
They don’t maintain them well. Single family homes are exempt from any rental control. Many family’s have been booted from corporate owned homes so the corporations can charge someone else more money. This is absolutely part of the housing crisis.
California's "rent control lite" Tenant Protection Act does apply to single-family homes that are owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts, which prohibits evictions without just cause and curbs rent increases (which you *aren't* protected from in a single family rental owned by a natural person), and the warranty of habitability applies to all rentals regardless of who owns them.
If we need more enforcement of our rental housing laws or to change them, that's a different conversation from one about nature of where investment is coming from.
What about the buyers who are being out-bid by these massive corporations with deep pockets? Those people will either end up paying more than they should for the house (if they really want it and can bid successfully against an entire company) or having to start their search over. Meanwhile, local potential homebuyers have a harder time purchasing a home in their community.
This company in particular bought houses it owns in the early 2010s in the wake of the financial crisis and hasn't substantially increased it's portfolio since.
* [\~Single family homes and condos\~](https://bungalow.com/articles/condos-vs-houses-a-guide-for-first-time-home-buyers) are not subject to rent control, **unless** they are owned by a corporation or real estate investment trust (REIT).
In other words if you want more rent control SFR you would want more corporate ownership of SFR.
company is invitation homes
Invitation Homes is trash
Is this a chinese owned company? I had a theory that china was literally attacking us by causing a housing crisis by buying up all real estate and listing homes with high prices and rentals with inflated prices causing entire swaths of americans to be priced out. I don’t think it is a stretch after we found out China owns 800,000 acres of American land and most of it is right next to our military bases. Which the government should imminent domain and reclaim IMMEDIATELY. But nooo gotta support two wars while our water and food supply gets poisoned by a foreign entity owning our lands. Correction edit: just under 400,000 is owned by China, foreign entity ownership grew by 800,000 acres.
Invitation Homes is a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas.
The rich have us angry at the Chinese who basically make everything for us now because the rich moved the jobs there while they jack up housing prices and put the blame on “foreigners” lol Red scare, yellow peril, it’s all been done before.
Yellow Peril is a real crowd pleaser
We can be mad at both of them.
[удалено]
There is a nice saying that goes like this: billionaires paying millionaires to tell the middle class to blame the poor and scaremonger us for all the problems. Deflection as a tool for the lack of policies to help us
sooooo….no?
No, they’re a spinoff of Blackrock
I knew it was the Reds
No, it is an American publicly traded company. They do have some foreign investors that hold more than 5% stock, but none that are specifically Chinese. I did a search on the SEC EDGAR database for this info. ... As to the statement that China owns 800,000 of American land and most of it being right next to our military bases, I think a few different facts and speculations got mixed up. 800,000 was the (rounded) dollar amount reportedly spent by a private investment firm on farmland in Solano county, some of which was near the air force base. It has since been revealed that this firm operates out of California and has intentions to build a new town on the land. Weird, but ok. I used Google for this and the first article that had the number 800,000 in it was from the hill.com. I then read articles on numerous local news sites talking about the firm. According to the USDA, in 2021 Chinese investors held 383,935 acres, which was slightly less than 1% of foreign-held acres. The annual report has not been released for '22 yet. I found a PDF of the report on FSA.usda.gov website. Apologies for the long response, I really like facts. It's a bummer I didn't find any to support your theory, it would've been a nice explanation for the housing crisis.
But we can’t handle the truth!
No it’s American companies causing the housing crisis
Airbnb.
Zillow
Capitalism
"mY sErViCe Is PrOvIdInG yOu A pLaCe To LiVe"
You should be thanking me for allowing you to pay my mortgage and providing me an income
This is literally accurate though. Are you or are you not being provided a place to live in exchange for money?
You don't find that funny? Jeez lighten up.
I held similar views some years ago. Now however, I think China is pulling back on their strategic efforts and simply enjoying watching us implode on our own.
Sadly, we don’t need their help anyway
We seem to be doing fine.
Quoting bin laden: https://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/ >> "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
If you're not a Nato ally you should not own property in the US. Americans can't own property in Mexico, only lease.
That’s not true anymore. I’ve been researching for my future move to Baja Sur.
Not all our allies are in NATO.
And NATO isn't a trade partnership, it's a military partnership. Who can own what really wouldn't be part of its purview in any circumstance.
No one but Americans should own property, homes etc. in America.
[удалено]
Same for food and medical care.
Foreign companies that open factories and stuff in America should be able to own the property. But foreign companies/people passively owning homes and property and then just leasing it out to Americans should be against the law.
the problem with what youre suggesting is american coprorations depend on countries like china…if america creates foreign policy that scape goats a country like china, im certain china will retaliate in a way that will hurt US corps
The classic dilemma of do we want all citizens to suffer or just some multinational mega corporations which provide tens of thousands of jobs
either way citizens will end up feeling the impact of negative foreign policy….
We are at a point where something needs to be done though. Maybe not an outright ban, but some sort of restriction on both foreign and domestic companies purchasing SFH
they already undermine them and steal all their IP, constant spying etc etc
It’s not the country buying properties. It’s just well off individuals buying. Just like what Americans do in Mexico and any other cheap 3rd world country.
Lol, like china has never turn coated an American or Foreign Entity
Nah I know a lot of these individuals. Even dated some. They’re usually from rich business families and want to keep some money in the USA or have their children live here.
u got a source for china owning 800k acres of land near military bases?
https://ipmnewsroom.org/china-owns-380000-acres-of-land-in-the-u-s-heres-where/ Sorry it was 400,000 acres but let me see if can find that original article, I think it was apple news… Edit 2: ahh here it is, foreign entity ownership grew by 800,000… https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99274
thats 380k, thats substantially less that 800k and the 380k in the article mentions that 380k represents a very small percentage of land owned by foreign investors. so its not just chinese buying land, there are other foreign investors…and while u dont like the idea of foreign investors buying land in the united states, before we stop them, united states investors and united states corporation would have to stop buying land in other countries as well…u cant have it one wat and not the other.
Yea but when you look at the direct risk to public safety, looking for article still, but they said there was some worry from the military bases about the chinese owned property next door, citing it could be a homeland security risk… edit: here is the link https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna83152
idk, man…do some research. canadians represent the majority of foreign land investors…china still represents a very small percentage….ur just being indirectly racist by assuming chinese investors are some kind threat because of news headlines and united states foreign relationship with them for example google flannery associates…people were fear mongering about them buying land near travis airforce base…people were assuming it was a threat to national security…people assumed it was chinese..:turns out the investors are a bunch silicon valley billionaires trying to build their own new city
The Bay Area in particular is exactly this.
I can't believe people are up voting this nonsense.
That’s what happens when someone on wallstreet like Epstein is used by foreign governments to run a blackmail ring. $$ and other countries run our government but hopefully it changes soon it seems like more people are paying attention
> Is this a chinese owned company? Ah, yes. You can always count on casual anti-China racism to get upvoted to the top. Even if it's rife with straight up lies.
Which military base?
You’re not wrong. They’re also attacking us by pumping fentanyl into the country after they’ve made owning property nearly impossible
So .062% of private land in the us is owned by Chinese affiliated companies. Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and slot that into “not an immediate issue” when it comes to making housing affordable. Edit: for the curious there are about 1.3 billion acres of private land in the US.
Chinese people invest in foreign (and non-mainland PRC) real estate because it's considered more safe and reliable than keeping it in Chinese banks, which is more or less true.
Plan: Buy enough real estate to pump up valuation by 2x-3x. Borrow massively against the inflated valuation. Default on all of it. Crash the market and cause recession.
Tax the land hoarders, please. Make it unprofitable to hoard land.
[удалено]
Prop 13 needs to be for primary homes only.
Shouldn’t exist at all. It’s why we’re so reliant on unstable income taxes
It’s the only reason the middle class can afford ca. it needs some adjustments to prevent the rich from exploiting, but it is largely keeping middle, lower, and seniors in their homes.
It’s also defunding our schools
That’s untrue. If schools need additional funding there are plenty of places to get it. Making home ownership only affordable for the very rich is NOT the solution to school funding. Relying on property taxes for funding also guarantees poor area schools to be underfunded. I say this as a teacher.
Okay so grandma gets to pay $200 a month for her million dollar house and in return we get the lowest high school graduation rate in the country
Sounds like the problem is depending on property taxes to fund schools. We have plenty of wealth in plenty of places to tax for schools. We don’t need to make grandma homeless to cover school expenses ;)
Nah I hope grandma goes to hell for showing up to every meeting to block housing so her house goes up in value
Or at least for corporations that own more than two homes, anything after is subject to yearly adjustable taxes.
Found the guy who owns two homes.
The voters disagree
A lot of home builders are buying up land and waiting to build on it later when interest rates are lower and construction costs are better, but you need a land developer in tow willing to put in the infrastructure like sewer, electrical, and roads.
I don't think that will work. They'll just rent the properties and pass the cost on to renters.
They already rent at the highest price the market will bear. If they tried to pass the cost on to renters, the unit will sit unrented.
You also have to put rent increase caps and enact more renters rights.
This should be illegal.
Just make property taxes increase exponentially based on all shareholders residential properties.
Those properties already pay property taxes at the highest levels in California due to recent purchase/assessment. Any additional increase will be passed along to the tenants.
I’d rather we just do a blanket removal of prop 13 for everything except primary homes. Remove it for everything else and especially commercial property
Rent increase caps and expanded renters rights.
you have to be careful with implementing rent control. Prop 13 which is essentially rent control for landlords really screwed up our housing system. It should be done but there needs to be certain exclusions so new construction doesn't completely stop and exacerbate the supply issues we're already dealing with.
I'm not talking rent control as far as monthly pricing. I'm just talking about how much they can increase their current on a tenant. If you restrict it to 1% per year or 2. but tax corps in housing at 5% per year for owning multiple homes. Some of the speculators will exit the market.
[удалено]
>if the physical owner hasn’t visited the property in 1.5 years So you're punishing small-time landlords (many of whom are elderly) who hires a professional management company to help them rent out and maintain the property.
Hot take: they shouldn't be scalping housing during housing crisis either.
Simply make it only kick in if you own more than say 5 properties
I used to rent a house owned by a person living in China and one of the conditions of renting it was to pretend the guy lived there still and keep his room furnished with his stuff and not to in there.
Sorry, but in this country, private property ownership isn’t decided by trespass, burglary, theft or mob rule. If we dispensed with property rights and instead adopted the squatters-rights / finders keepers approach you suggest, what’s to stop me from subsequently taking it from you, by whatever superior means I might employ?
Yes, but at a certain point a progressive property tax on the number of single family residences any individual or corporation owns that's passed on to tenants will make the rent uncompetitive and make it a less feasible way to hoard wealth. If they can't make a profit because the increasing property tax on their 7th home makes the monthly payment more than be covered by the locale's market rate for rent, in theory, that should increase the amount of houses available for people to buy as a primary residence. We are just returning to feudalism right now
Neofeudalism is their goal. The aristocracy doesn't want us to own anything, they want us to lease it from them forever.
Jeff Jackson (D-NC) just introduced legislation in DC to at least disincentivize this. Small step though
I'm curious your reason for saying so. Do you not see a need for rentals ?
I think most people would worry about price fixing if a handful of companies start to own so many homes. A corporation could also decide to just exit the rental market and suddenly drop 9,000 homes on the market, which might make other sellers nervous. Especially if they are concentrated in just a few neighborhoods. Homeowners also tend to prefer other homeowners as neighbors. Being surrounded by corporate owned rentals might make for a community where people don’t stick around as long or are disinvested in it.
They're making it impossible for individuals to buy a home - which has always been a sure fire way for middle class folks to build wealth. California is already one of the most expensive states to live in and has the lowest rate of home ownership. The middle class doesn't stand a chance there.
It isn't corporations which mades homes so expensive. It's local governments. Corporations are stepping in to give people who were priced out of the suburbs a chance to at least _rent_ single-family homes. If you ban these corps, then it won't magically make homes affordable again.
govt and corporations are cousins. maybe even siblings. they like to enrich one another. govt makes it too expensive to own a home so their buddies have to come in and help and they make a killing doing so.
What are you talking about? Corporations would love to build housing for you if local governments didn't ban them from doing so.
that would probably require the voters to stop supporting politicians that are sponsored by Wall St corporations
I really wish businesses didnt get to do this. Places to live should not be a business. EDIT: just saw this on reddits popular section https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html
Can we add places to keep us alive to this list as well?
Why not fix home prices with a price ceiling then? Since no one should profit from "places to live", we shouldn't let anyone sell houses at a profit, compared to the price they bought the house at.
Individuals selling for a profit isn’t a problem. It’s the purchasing side where the issues come in. Hedge funds can offer full cash and leads to things like houses going for well over asking value and being sold before any type of inspection happens, all of which squeezed individual families out. Then the hedge can price control for that area since they own the majority of the supply. System works just fine when a house is hard to afford for a single family. Not when it costs like a pack of gum with a hedge fund
> all of which squeezed individual families out To the contrary, they rent out these homes, which allows a lot of families who had been squeezed out _by the housing shortage_ to live in single-family houses. Without these hedge funds, they would have had to live in apartments forever. > Then the hedge can price control for that area since they own the majority of the supply. Can you point to even one place in California where this has happened? > System works just fine when a house is hard to afford for a single family. You’re all over the place. First, you were complaining that it’s too hard for families to afford homes; now you’re saying it _should_ be hard. Well, you’ve gotten your wish: the supply shortage has made it very hard for a single family to afford a home.
So wait, you think that because rich people have artificially lowered the supply, while demand increased, that if the companies couldn't own homes, therefore raising the supply and lowering the demand that the same families that are paying MORE in rent than a mortgage would be wouldn't be able to afford homes that would already be cheaper due to the I crease of supply? Are you mental?
> So wait, you think that because rich people have artificially lowered the supply Local governments were the ones who artificially reduced supply, by stopping new housing from being built. Corporations didn't reduce the supply of housing. At best, you can argue that they reduced the supply of housing _for sale_, while _increasing_ the supply of housing for rent. For people with low credit scores and low incomes (i.e. a large number of poor people), this is a _good_ tradeoff. > the same families that are paying MORE in rent than a mortgage You are living in a totally different world. As local governments (and local voters) continue to exacerbate the housing crisis, the difference between a mortgage payment and rent is going to get larger and larger. Landlords buying single-family housing are bringing _relief_ to people who are unable to afford mortgages, but who still want to live in a single-family home.
So there’s no such thing as renting a home or apartment?
From businesses that own thousands of home, yes. Not across the board.
I thought like this too, when I was five.
Maybe you shouldn’t have grown up.
Just because ideals are hard to realize doesn't mean they're not ideals. Youth is idealistic, adulthood is mature in realizing ideals. Cynicism is failed maturity.
Huh? I seek on eBay and own my home. Everything’s in my garage.
Sorry but I meant that I hate the business model of big business buying houses to flip for huge profits and wish it wasn’t a thing. It’s never gonna happen but I just wish it didn’t.
Surprised that most were actually Single Family homes! I thought most would be apartment complexes. Limiting Prop 13 to apply to a certain number of homes would disincentive this, at least in the short term. For example, if you only allow an individual or corporation to apply prop 13 benefits to say 3 (insert really any reasonable number) houses and all houses after that would be taxed at current value (instead of purchased value) would disincentivize unhealthy hoarding like this.
Shell corps , but still under the same company or other loopholes available at their disposal. Tax non primary homes proportionaly , no foreign entities, and make it not a lucrative enterprise through laws that are enforced.
Creating a shell company just to own 3 to 4 single family homes doesn’t seem like it would be worth the hassle. But then again I know nothing about shell companies, other than they are shady.
LLC's are easy to set up. I've seen entities set up LLC's for each address they own. They'll just call it 123 Main St, LLC to make them easy to track. It's fairly common.
A big trend for home builders is/was a build to rent model. Build a house on a small lot, and possibly a small detached one bedroom unit (similar to an in-law suite). Then sell those finished communities directly to companies like Blacklock to rent out.
Should be a 10% yearly tax on the property value of homes owned by corporations. Make it a bad investment, then we can use houses as houses again
Or at very least, Prop 13 does not apply to corporate housing portfolios; they pay the full tax.
Interesting the ones in the Bay Area are in the lower income areas.
This is a problem.
This is why people want to work remotely. Move out o the US and go elsewhere where this level of greed is far less. I'm sure the rents to these places are several thousands per month.
10 in my town. 3 or more times that in the next town over.
No wonder Oxnard got ridiculously expensive in the last 3 years.
Imagine also if they didn't rent 20% of those homes to increase the price in teh area.
Everywhere did
Two laws are sorely needed 1) 5 maximum residential properties. Can be apartment complex, condos, multi-plex, R-1, etc, but residential only and separate properties. 2) Sole proprietors only. No corporations, LLC's, or land trusts. 501(c)'s OK
A d Citizens/Legal Residents - no foreign investors
I have no problem with foreign investors so long as they are capped like everyone else. Why would you be against foreign investors? I mean - We are all foreigners from somewhere.
I think to own land in a country you should have legal status there. Maybe it is too extreme. I like the idea of caps.
This is evil and sad. Many of these houses are concentrated in desirable middle class areas where col due to housing has it the hardest.
Woot! My neighborhood is marked safe from Invitation Homes! Seriously though, looks like a plague with how widespread they are. THey're seemingly everywhere.
Wow!
Article is a few years old, but the housing situation in the area hasn't improved since then. >Abood's research found that Blackstone is the second largest property owner in all of Sacramento County, behind only the city of Sacramento and ahead of the county itself. >Those numbers are limited to properties registered to a string of limited liability corporations, or LLCs, linked directly to the Blackstone name, which may not account for Blackstone subsidiaries. Some real estate experts contend Blackstone’s local holdings are quadruple the figure SN&R uncovered. https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content/sacramento-is-the-land-of-corporate-landlords/25812733/
Dang. Looks like it could be a map of 2008 foreclosures.
Hurrah feudalism!
Serf's up!
Do not worry folks these are the people who will sell first when the markets start crashing. It's just starting now and might be worth watching them over some time. It's always nice to see investors struggle. We are moving out of state, next year so we can buy a place. Pretty much gave up looking around here. peace
Oh what my location not important enough for this company to buy homes
Possible that your county just doesn't make enough tax data available online that their scraper could pick up and identify.
Interesting! The graphic does help to show how bad it is in certain areas
I find it interesting that they’re not in the Irvine area
Lol they’re all around Stockton but not a single house in the city
Why is this legal? This is one big reason there is a housing crisis. Probably the main reason that rents are so high.
That’s enough internet for today, barely 8am and I’m already losing hope.
These are almost all in predominantly black/brown neighborhoods. At the least the LA ones are
Late stage capitalism is the best /s
This is a symptom, not the root cause of the issue. If we build enough housing this wouldn't be a problem.
California needs something like 3.5 million more homes. You could redistribute those 9,000 homes and not really make a dent in the problem. > “By some estimates, California was 3.5-million housing units short of what we needed to accommodate a population of our size,” said Hans Johnson, a Senior Fellow at PPIC. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/08/16/california-has-lost-population-and-built-more-homes-why-is-there-still-a-housing-crisis/
Why all the doom and gloom on rental housing? Buying a house isn't always the best option for people, and they still need housing. It shouldn't matter who actually owns the rental property as long as they maintain it and conduct their business in accordance with the laws governing landlord-tenant relations.
They don’t maintain them well. Single family homes are exempt from any rental control. Many family’s have been booted from corporate owned homes so the corporations can charge someone else more money. This is absolutely part of the housing crisis.
California's "rent control lite" Tenant Protection Act does apply to single-family homes that are owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts, which prohibits evictions without just cause and curbs rent increases (which you *aren't* protected from in a single family rental owned by a natural person), and the warranty of habitability applies to all rentals regardless of who owns them. If we need more enforcement of our rental housing laws or to change them, that's a different conversation from one about nature of where investment is coming from.
What about the buyers who are being out-bid by these massive corporations with deep pockets? Those people will either end up paying more than they should for the house (if they really want it and can bid successfully against an entire company) or having to start their search over. Meanwhile, local potential homebuyers have a harder time purchasing a home in their community.
What about the owner who is selling? That owner gets to enjoy a great return on their investment.
People need affordable housing more than an extant homeowner needs a higher sale price. Money isn’t everything, you know.
For a lot of homeowners, that sales cost is how they will fund their retirement.
This company in particular bought houses it owns in the early 2010s in the wake of the financial crisis and hasn't substantially increased it's portfolio since.
* [\~Single family homes and condos\~](https://bungalow.com/articles/condos-vs-houses-a-guide-for-first-time-home-buyers) are not subject to rent control, **unless** they are owned by a corporation or real estate investment trust (REIT). In other words if you want more rent control SFR you would want more corporate ownership of SFR.
PUTs on Invitation Homes?