(no title)
tnmom | 1 year ago
Is there a true downside to the plans occasionally thrown around in Congress to limit/disincent institutional investors housing holdings?
tnmom | 1 year ago
Is there a true downside to the plans occasionally thrown around in Congress to limit/disincent institutional investors housing holdings?
davidw|1 year ago
More than anything, we need more housing supply in more places, and high insurance rates make that tricky because they're actually hurting multifamily construction quite a bit. It's sort of a vicious circle.
In lieu of that kind of housing, some reforms that would help are things like eliminating burdensome parking regulations and reducing minimum lot sizes, like Houston did to spur a lot of "gentle density" infill housing. Those sorts of incremental changes might help out some smaller developers who don't need huge loans.
orange_county|1 year ago
This is a supply issue and thus why people should be considering joining YIMBY Action.
austhrow743|1 year ago
People who have a large portion of their wealth in housing, and even more so those who have used debt to take an extremely leveraged position on housing, benefit from increases in housing prices and lose out on decreases.
Having a significant amount of voters be in the above position is to make effective government action to reduce housing prices impossible.
So with that in mind, if institutional investors are disincentivised from investing in housing, which group is supposed to take their place?
greesil|1 year ago
simoncion|1 year ago
(One obvious way for the folks making big money from renting housing to do this is to ensure the obstruction of new construction.)
And (of course) both sets of politically-savvy entities can encourage others to agitate on their behalf for the entity's preferred political outcome.