On the political/activist or academic left or the normie voter left? Because I’ve sure never heard this (particularly in a state with catastrophically low housing stock and tragically high homelessness).
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
And often people who have it don’t know it’s niche, so that don’t adjust the discourse for their audience. Then you’re reading along and suddenly sense turns to gibberish.
I have absolutely been told by people in Denver that landlords/PE are intentionally buying units and not renting them out to somehow make more money than just renting them.
Private Equity. A new boogeyman where money from institutional investors (ie mostly pension funds) is being blamed for the housing crisis because they are buying homes to rent and as investments because, as they explicitly state in their filings, they don't see many cities will build more homes.
I’m surprised (small-town bougie homeowner lens) but it tracks given the desperate housing/homelessness/situation —that is, frustration and disempowerment breeds conspiratorial thinking.
Absolutely, just unfortunate that it impacts actual policy as we have city council folks fighting against new homes because they dont think they will be actually rented out
Activist would be what I would think; e.g. several months ago I was at my city councillor's neighborhood briefing in Boston, and within minutes of starting a conversation with the local activist sitting next to me she was asserting that rents are up because landlords are holding units off the market
yeah I think to some extent insofar as people are thinking it through they aren't aware of how much of the rental stock (at least in my neighborhood where I'm familiar) is owned by tiny operators, the market is wildly fragmented
(and actually a lot of the worst abusive behavior is by the middlemen between the tiny operators and their tenants, who are actively robbing both sides, but that's a whole different conversation)
Corporate landlords may be in even a worse position to do this. Especially when you consider that they are made up of people who get fired if revenue declines for even one quarter
It was a pretty big push by DSA San Francisco a few years back. "The tax will make speculators and landlords pay for the vacant homes they hoard – denying stable housing to thousands of San Franciscans" https://dsasf.org/empty-homes-tax-campaign-launched/
Ah, I wonder what the data is/are that told DSA this was happening in SF? Of course it seems more like to be a problem in big cities on small land footprints (e.g. surrounded by water)
Sorry, I don't know what you're asking exactly. Just showing that at least in SF, DSA thought there were a ton of homes that were just sitting vacant - i.e. someone bought it and let it sit empty, which is what the original post was discussing.
Sure, I just wondered to what degree it’s true that landlords—who own and maintain buildings and rent them out for income—are in a position to “hoard” empty apts, while PE definitely have the resources, influence and predatory orientation to do it.
Yeah, I am also very skeptical that landlords are hoarding empty apartments in SF. Perhaps PE is doing a little, but it's not like there are vast neighborhoods of mostly empty buildings. My totally uninformed opinion is it's likely people who are too broke to update their in-law units or something.
Comments
Sus
I’m listening to reframes to see if I’m misunderstanding op language.
You are valid. Not sus to me.
Ty for vouching for Rev as a source of ideas. It helps me push through when I get confused.
Sometimes I need a little, “look, this is another way to get it”
I have heard land owners say this. Even observed them do this to blight then gentrify a neighborhood. Or some greedy idea about supply demand.
Where I’m from, landowners are rarely leftist. I may have a purity test to interrogate.
Help, what’s PE?
https://dsasf.org/empty-homes-tax-campaign-launched/