alert0

>leading to problems with homelessness and tenant impoverishment, ..., paying increasing quantities of their income

I see all of these as problems with zoning. I could also rant about rent control but it has a much smaller effect compared to the prevention of construction and density.

I appreciate the reply, I hadn't seen these before and I'll do some more research on them.

My initial reaction is how does this address the issue of developing more units in dense urban environments? For example, if we convert all multi family dwellings in LA to CLTs. Housing is more affordable and no residents are being displaced. Now more people want to move to LA. Who builds housing for them?

They would be required for compete over an extremely limited number of SFHs. Unless the CLTs had a provision that every Nth year, they would be torn down and redeveloped for greater density, this sounds like it would cause a city to completely stagnate. That Nth year clause would really go against the non-displacement goal. It could be sustainable if a city had zero growth, but for desirable metro areas that are mostly developed, that is not the case.

Market rents cause healthy turn over. There are other ways to address affordability, such as addressing wage growth, removing density restrictions, or expanding Section 8. Non-profit landlords would just further distort the system by not addressing systemic needs that require capital.

>The person who built the building, either the actual builders or the investors, make it available.

The person who owns the land makes it available by deciding to rent to people. The person who owns the land can decide to tear it down or not rent to people.

>take no risks

Real estate is not a risk free investment. It would be much more popular than bonds (when interest rates aren't near zero) if it was.

>provide no service

Maintaining the property in a habitable condition is a service. Maintenance expenses are why a large number of people choose to rent instead of buy when staying somewhere short term.

>add no value

Making housing available in desirable locations for less than the cost of a SFH is adding value. It can reduce people's commute or put them in neighborhoods they want to live in. If that land was instead covered in SFHs (which seems to be the implied ideal for the "landlords should not exist" crowd) the number of people who could live there would be significantly reduced.

>employ nobody

Landscapers, plumbers, electricians, roofers, property managers, cleaners, inspectors. In the case of new construction, a lot more people.

>often literally do nothing

Ha. I wish.

The comment is about landlords being predatory, not about an underwater investment.

This is a similar situation to rent control, it privatizes the costs of a social problem.

>you're in the least productive and most predatory sector of our economy (the landlord)

I never really understand this. Let's say I own a 4 unit building on a decent sized lot in a big city. I make housing available to 3 other families in a place they could not afford to own. What is your alternative? I should tear down the apartments and opt to live in a single family home? How does that help anyone?

It wasn't like that at all when I worked there. Quite the opposite, people were very quiet so we could do focused work, we did our work, then went home. We usually ate lunch together. Many of my coworkers had kids to go home and take care of. No one was looking to hang around. I'm sure it varies throughout the company though.

You can afford condos on both sides of the bay.

I am really sick of the word share. Share your data with us, share your heart rate with us, we just share this with a few of our partners. Sharing is caring, I guess.

I think they are. They are purchasing an asset that others may not be able to afford and making it available. Additionally, they're funding construction of more housing wherever possible. Are tenants just money conduits for the corporations they work for?

Right now interest rates are low, they cannot use them as a tool in a crisis, for this reason they are printing money to lower the overall debt obligation of the US. Inflating away our debt. This will eventually lead to inflation at which point the interest rates will rise again (prediction, at the end of the decade). This is the correct play for where we are in the long term debt cycle. In my opinion, this is happening a little earlier than it should, but it might just be a sneak preview provided by the pandemic.

Stock prices are rising because the interest rates are so low. A ton of institutional money that was in bonds is now out seeking yield. This moves a ton of money into stocks and, as we see in the article, real estate.

The labor class has been shafted for years by the US dollar being the global reserve currency, causing us to run persistent trade deficits. This has off-shored manufacturing and gutted our capabilities. If the US weakens the dollar and rebuilds the manufacturing base, which they appear to be trying to do with the investment in semiconductors, I think we will be in a much better position. I am happy with the stimulus because it does both, weaken the dollar and invest in US capabilities. We just need to make sure it flows to the correct places.