Dems introduce Bill to ban hedge funds from owning single family houses

I think local areas should have the power to limit “mass landlords” from owning single family properties (or at least regulate how they are rented out - in terms of short term rentals). That’s very much a local issue though where they don’t want residential neighborhoods overrun with Airbnb nightmare guests.

Not sure the federal govt should be in this business. Maybe they can tweak the tax code to make it less appealing to a business to “hold” residential properties at large scale? But of course many apartment complexes and such are owned by either large public corporation (REITS) or private equity. Does it make sense to bifurcate out how single family or individual townhouses are treated compared to a larger complex?

 

My heart likes this. My brain is telling me this is a state or local issue at best and there may be unintended consequences despite good intentions.

 

Typical Democrats with the half-measures. Ban hedge funds instead!

 

@Gatoragman stormwater design and the related water quality issues is a large part of what I do for a for a living for the last 25 years. Our firm help to write the Harvey Harper rules that are the basis for the nutrient removal standards and calculations throughout the state.

please tell me which part of my statement is incorrect and source your claim.

We are currently designing a site for a 5 acre climate controlled vertical stacked trays greenhouse and packing facility with the related parking and shipping pavement areas. It is 100% exempt from any water management rules (no wetlands, no protected species at this site) and even building permit requirements because it is deemed ag under DACS. The 2 acre dentist office three miles away which will generate much less nutrient runoff required close to 100K in stormwater chambers to satisfy the current rules and that price will go up under the proposed rules if they hold up in court (doubtful). We also represent the agriculture interests for a large part of Barron Collier holdings and several other large ag interests across south Florida.

I'm not spitballing here.

 

Wait until you write a $75K check so your kid can buy a starter?

I don’t particularly like they are going about addressing this but it is a real problem. Home ownership is still the best long term wealth builder for the vast majority of people.

 

That is their problem not ours. As fund managers they take risks. They cannot reap all the benefits and then get government to bail them out of their losses. Having banks that are too big to fail is more than enough for me.

 

Here's a cute story about Dumbass gov.

I own a condo in Summit county - ski country usa. The vast majority of the units are used part time by Front range folk & most of them rent short term during times they are not using them. Summit County like all our mt towns suffers from significant lack of affordable housing. So, Summit County BANNED short term rentals.

Now who benefits from that? Since people use their place frequently this did squat to increase long term rentals. But, think about it. Who benefits. Hmmm. What's the biggest corporation BY FAR in summit county? Why it's Vail, Inc. (sidebar: they've already been in trouble in the county for anti competitive practices) Why don't you check their lodging rates. Or, slum it over at the Hampton Inn (obv another beneficiary) for $400 a night. So, this law does little to alleviate the problem, shuts out the little guys & massively subsidizes the ski areas & other commercial lodging. My baby works out there & most of her friends live outta vans.

Steamboat put a healthy tax on short term rentals & allocates 75% of that tax to BUILD subsidized housing.

Edit. Just searched lodging at Keystone for 2 adults over the holidays. Cheapest rate is $1288 per night.

 

It makes sense if you consider a lot of people are buying houses and condos in desirable areas just to rent out as AirBnBs, so that does have an effect on home availability and prices. Not saying I agree with a total ban but it may force people who only run AirBnBs -- or people who rely on the AirBnB income to fund their vacation home -- to sell their condos and houses in that area.

That could be remedied without a total ban by saying leases have to 3 months or greater, so you can get seasonal people in but not the weekend vacationers.

 

that's not going to create any affordable housing there....nothing will go under 1/2m. Plus, your plan punishes 100% of the folks for maybe what 10% of the folks are doing. It's not a home ownership problem....it is a seasonal problem. No one cares about poor people except when they need them during the ski season. The solution is to make VAIL inc provide far more employee housing. Why should I subsidize Vail? I can't rent my place for a week in the summer for what I charge for 1 night in the winter.

 

Look guys, the capitalist is saying the only way to provide affordable housing in certain places for workers is to use the government to build housing to offer below market value. (and he is correct)

Also short term rentals suck, lots of HOAs close to resort areas/attractions ban them here, I dont think as a matter of housing issues, just having random people in and out all the time is a nuisance for residents. And good luck tracking down the corporations who own them if you have some kind of issue with the tenants. Given the prices I see on AirBnB I think the golden age of cheap rentals is over.

 

I am not against that solution. I think Summit should tax short term rentals & use the money for affordable housing, but in the post you quoted, I said Vail should provide the housing. I think that too is part of the sol. As of now, they have limited employee housing, but I think it mostly goes to foreigners.

 

If Vail Inc. controls the housing they are required to build, they have a lot of incentive to not offer it for less than market value, and you are kind of depending on the government to keep them in line and police them, which can definitely go wrong if certain interests can corrupt local/state gov. Probably a good idea to have some kind of mixed ownership situation where Vail doesn't have total control, or maybe some kind of tenants union. Perhaps Vail would just live and let live, but they build new stuff, they might get ideas.

 

And if they are from out of state... 2%.

 

Yeah, that's when its made the most sense I think, if you need like 3-4 bedrooms for a group. I have relatives with a beachhouse, and they were telling me what one of the short term rentals across the street goes for and I was floored. Like you could buy a car for the cost of a week at this place.

 

I agree that there would need to be enforcement. A friend of mine who works for the shitty Vail inc used to live in their housing in Keystone. Nowadays, I think they use that almost exclusively to lure workers from S. America. My daughter is on her 3rd year at A Basin (blessedly the gov made Vail divest of it many years ago) & tried to get employee housing. They don't have any of their own lodging, but do offer some housing, but only to foreign workers. Summit county rocked during the world cup....my daughter works with a bunch of Argentines.

 

I like it. Seems just banning hedge funds would be better.

 

This idea seems to run contrary to economic conservatism in so much as it entails intervention into the free market by government.

Yet I think it's a good idea.

The younger generations seem to have lost the appreciation for home ownership, which is just about as fundamental to freedom as anything. Conventional wisdom holds that private property rights are the cornerstone of liberty.

A free market environment that pits the individual agsinst NYC investment megawealth for home ownership, that incentivises the latter to hold and rent--thereby keeping more ppl as renters, and fewer individual homeowners--is therefore contrary to fostering conservative values.

So....hat tip to the dems.

(Rare as that is, fwiw).

 

Hate when that happens.

And it happens a lot. (You read through thousands of pages spread over hundreds of articles, and you walk away with settled nuggets of wisdom...but then can't recall or locate the sources...).

 

They're keeping the bubble inflated. Get them out of the residential picture with a heads up, and we should get a mild correction in the real estate market without a crash.

Again, I think it's a good idea.

Home ownership is a national cultural value. Rigid, frigid investment culture to that treats home ownership as a profiteering commercial investment venture to cater to remote NYC shareholders, undermines rather than fostering that value.

Jmho/fwiw.