- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Executive Order banning Big Wall Street from buying up single-family homes
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:34 am to Chucktown_Badger
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:34 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
then was there really a need or demand for "affordable housing" in that area?
Since when is this about affordable housing?
quote:
If there was that little demand for housing, then they likely wouldn't have been able to charge inflated rent in those homes prior to selling...because if the demand WAS there, someone else would buy those (now cheaper) homes and start renting them out.
The demand was and still is there. The profit dried up. The reason they are dumping in FL is rising insurance rates. Unlike a local landlord, these companies have to hire companies to maintain the property. When you factor all of that in with insurance rates climbing faster then rental rates, then they are no longer at a ROI that makes sense so they dump the properties and buy in other states.
This is well known in my industry.
1
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:37 am to stout
quote:
Since when is this about affordable housing?
Since the OP.
Even if a corporation owns the dwelling, people still live in them. So if it's not about affordability, then what is the point?
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:37 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why should the government be responsible for ensuring homeowners never take a loss?
I didn't say that at all. You are putting words in my mouth.
I do think it is in the best interest of consumers to keep large funds from artificially moving markets and that is what happens with a lot of these funds.
I also think this is more of a local issue FWIW but not many local Governments are willing to stop it.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:39 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Since the OP.
Ummm...in RE terms affordable housing is different then affordability.
Affordable housing is subsidized housing. Always has been.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You think the person arguing that government shouldn't treat people differently and affect the market is the communist?
Corporations aren't people. Unless you love an oligarchy.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:51 am to stout
quote:
Affordable housing is subsidized housing. Always has been.
Ok, fine, but you knew what I was talking about. Nowhere in here have I or anyone else referenced subsidized or Section 8 housing.
ETA: and for the record, I would love it if a corporation dumped a bunch of houses on the market here. Myself and other SFH buyers would celebrate
This post was edited on 5/12/26 at 8:55 am
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:53 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Ok, fine, but you knew what I was talking about. Nowhere in here have I or anyone else referenced subsidized housing.
No, not really. I didn't read the entire thread and only responded correcting a few things SFP said on the last few pages.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:54 am to Ailsa
How about only one home per owner for all. Only one home per social security number of legal citizens.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:55 am to Picayuner
quote:
How about only one home per owner for all. Only one home per social security number of legal citizens.
I'm not sure if this is serious, hyperbole, or something else.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:56 am to Picayuner
quote:
Only one home per social security number of legal citizens.
Landlords are still needed
We just don't need landlords that are big enough to artificially move whole markets all on their own.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
With populists, expect populism.
With contrarians, expect contrarianism.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 10:11 am to stout
quote:Fair enough. But other than insulating existing homeowners from losses, I'm not sure what the value proposition of allowing the government to manipulate the market is. What is your value proposition for allowing government to manipulate the market?
I didn't say that at all. You are putting words in my mouth.
quote:I'm curious. What is your definition of "artificial" market particpants vs. "natural" (?) participants?
I do think it is in the best interest of consumers to keep large funds from artificially moving markets and that is what happens with a lot of these funds.
quote:Always.
I also think this is more of a local issue FWIW
quote:To be fair it's kinda hard for states or cities to regulate commerce. Once upon a time it was hard for our federal government to do that to, but many are begging for it now.
not many local Governments are willing to stop it.
This post was edited on 5/12/26 at 10:14 am
Posted on 5/12/26 at 10:34 am to Penrod
quote:
This is complete commie bullshite. And it will hurt homebuyers and renters.
You mispelled Nimrod. Luckily your comment cleared it up.
Good lord.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 10:37 am to Ailsa
absolutely unconstitutional. not a small government move.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 10:46 am to BugAC
quote:
Corporations aren't people.
a. That comment had nothing to do with corporations
b. Corporations are juridical persons, and juridical persons have existed since at least ancient Rome
Posted on 5/12/26 at 10:46 am to tonydtigr
quote:
With contrarians, expect contrarianism.
There is nothing contrary with promoting the free market, which I've done for 20+ years on here.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:"Government manipulation" aka the law?
Just like MAGA will be defending government manipulation of free markets
With populists, expect populism.
"Government manipulation" limits monopolies, murder for hire, unsafe food, hazardous toys, dangerous products, etc.
Government manipulation enables Wall Street to buy tracks of homes, then rent them at a profit. The buy-up increases starter homes costing young buyers the opportunity for ownership, as well as increasing monthly cost of renting.
You've argued the housing bubble needs to burst, that the market needs to crash. Monopolistic large companies can manipulate that into not happening. So out-the-window goes you free market premise.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:But assigning the term "free" to a manipulated market is contrary.
There is nothing contrary with promoting the free market
Posted on 5/12/26 at 11:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where are these lower property taxes occurring?
I know Texas has it
Where in TX? I am in Montgomery County and even though they increased the homestead exemption, with the higher values my taxes still went up this year.
Posted on 5/12/26 at 11:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Government manipulation enables Wall Street to buy tracks of homes, then rent them at a profit.
Government or the market?
quote:
You've argued the housing bubble needs to burst, that the market needs to crash.
Yes, and that's happening with these institutional investors.
quote:
Monopolistic large companies can manipulate that into not happening.
1. There are no "monopolies", or anything close to it. Don't be a retard like RobBob
2. The opposite is happening, and has been for years. These institutional investors are taking HUGE losses on their RE investments, currently. RE and AI are busting the private credit bubble, too.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News