I know everyone is upset about single family homes being bought by investors and rented out, but I can’t get that mad about it because they give families who don’t have a $100,000+ down payment or cannot qualify for a mortgage the opportunity to live in single family neighborhoods with good schools.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/kate10010.bsky.social/post/3liphubrlmk2i
1/
Multiple things are true:
• ATL has an unusually high level of SFHs owned by PE
• Nationally, investors own very few homes (~3% as cited already)
Also, it might be difficult to get the person you just sold it to to sell it back for less even if the market as a whole dropped a bit in the meantime.
What’s true is that people have squeezed the market by blocking construction, which has resulted in a big windfall to property owners at the expense of renters/buyers.
The answer to families that are in need of a home is not renting from a landlord at 2x the mortgage, it’s public housing.
They then charge someone poorer than them £800 a month to pay off their BTL mortgage rather than the £500 a month the tenant would be paying on their own mortgage.
There are approximately 15 million vacant homes in America. The solution isn’t build more homes.
Among other things, a house is considered “vacant” if it was recently purchased but the new occupant hasn’t moved in yet. Similarly, homes of the recently deceased are considered vacant.
The stat is bad.
“Hey dude, you look cold and uncomfortable and extremely vulnerable. I can hook you up with a place but you have to scoot to the next town over”
(Homeless dude) “Nah”
Okay, later
Indeed, if you build enough new housing, they'll sell off some of what they already bought.
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/10/22/report-billionaire-investors-driving-homelessness-housing-costs/
No actual left wing economist supports what you’re proposing. This is as nonsensical as creationism. It isn’t leftist, it isn’t subversive, it’s just wrong.
I disagree bc investors jack up rents and most lower to mid middle class families can’t afford them. The ones who can afford them usually rent short term until they can purchase their own home. It’s mostly a bridge for upper middle class Americans.
https://bsky.app/profile/westnorth.com/post/3ld5a6vt2qk23
https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20200227-the-housing-supply-shortage
And PS they do, in fact, wish to live in 100% owner-occupied places, prob the #1 form of classism in the US
But renting is also fine, and every neighborhood, including single family neighborhoods, should have rental housing. https://nlihc.org/resource/new-research-examines-impact-restrictive-zoning-and-regulations-associated-rental-deserts#:~:text=Rental%20deserts%20are%20predominantly%20located,%25%20in%20high%2Drental%20neighborhoods.
Come to think of it, boosterism used to exist so that your house would gain value as the town improved; now mere scarcity is the source of value & ppl fear that any change.
It does get me a bit more when people do it for houses- because usually there's an extra layer there of chopping it up into an HMO. Though both shouldn't be viable financial strategies and its ridiculous they are.
Point being, paying 97% of market value with cash doesn't automatically make it the best available deal for PE. It's not a decisive advantage.