quote:
The proposal in its current form feels like it’s designed to tank the market so that homebuyers will revolt and push the government to keep the status quo in place. The government will then say we tried, but the people didn’t want this. And on the system will go without meaningful change, completely ignoring that a way way better method to balance the market was always available from day 1.

In short, you don’t punish the people who played the game legally under the old, shitty system. You just update the system to prevent them from continuing to exploit it. Ban the sale of more homes to anyone with more than 1000 units, don’t force them to sell what they already have

Fine with this approach. But then on top of it say something like "By 2044, institutional single family home buyers must divest down to X number of homes". Maybe something like 40-50. Gives them 20 years to play the real estate market to maximize profits and doesn't cause a panic.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by baldona

Florida

Member since Feb 2016

20579 posts

Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:56 am to CatfishJohn

So what can a corporation own? Apartments? What about farms? What about fishing boats? What about empty lots?

Who makes a new development? Don’t allow companies like Horton to develop neighborhoods anymore?

Where does all this start and stop?

If interest rates weren’t so high, no one would be complaining about corporations owning single family homes because they could afford more. The real issue is just that people got used to low interest rates.

There were plenty of times in the 80s and 90s that interest rates prevented home ownership also and corporations weren’t to blame then.

1 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board