How private equity is changing housing

I love that there are people that can't even conceive of the idea that entities that let out apartments are providing a service to residents. In their view, the natural state of every resident is a desire to own their home.

A fun knock-on effect of this policy proposal: it would effectively halt all new development of dense multifamily.

Yes, the natural state of every resident is to live in their own home. To be clear by home I don't mean "single family detached house on a suburban street", I mean a place to live with water, electricity, and a roof.

Landlords provide no 'service'; they are merely an existence tax.

The market already does not build dense multifamily; what is there to halt?

You can't fathom that someone might not want an ownership stake in the property they happen to reside in, that there could possibly be a downside to that.

There is absolutely no way I would have wanted to be tied down to buying a house when I was young.

I never said homeownership. Just a place to live thats not owned by a ruthless corporation that spends every day trying to squeeze every penny possible out of the tenant

> The market already does not build dense multifamily; what is there to halt?

Landlords have existed since forever, and the market was until recently very happy to build enough supply.

That it's suddenly gone downhill implies a problem well beyond "landlords".

I'm responding to your policy proposal! It's not my fault if that policy doesn't cohere with your preferences!

There's also the obvious fact that we do build dense multifamily (not enough of it, but some is better than "none", which is the endpoint of that policy).

You know how it's recommended to sell employee stock grants asap, so your not over indexed into your employer? I.E. if the company you're working for performs poorly or goes under, you don't want to lose your job and wealth, and if it does well, you'll keep making money at your job anyway, so there's no advantage to investing more of your personal capital into your employer than you would if they weren't employing you (barring insider trading).

It's funny that people rarely seem to apply the same reasoning to their dwelling place.

What about a non-ruthless corporation? How do you test that?

What about the fact that most homeowners get the vast majority of the money for said purchase from a (presumably ruthless) corporation?

I think everybody has to be obliged, at least once, to move within a year or two of buying a house, just so they can understand what it is to take a huge bath on closing costs.

And that's before you get to things like the furnace going, or the roof failing. Two kinds of people with this "landlords provide absolutely no services" perspective: people so comfortable financially that the y-o-y costs of maintaining a property don't even register, and renters who have never owned and been on the hook for an urgent big-ticket maintenance problem.

The real reason single family housing ownership is the only real option is that society effectively pays people to own; appreciation out weighs all costs of ownership so in the end it’s free or even an investment.

But if it was truly a free market and supply met demand owning housing would be a depreciating asset and renting would be cheaper.

Land ownership is a cultural construct. Their is no natural state.

Can I get a waiver due to my home purchase at the height of the bubble before the gfc? Cause I feel like I’ve paid enough for lessons learned.

No such thing as a non-ruthless corporation, it is inherent with the legal structure.

I think it hasn't clicked with you that you're effectively advocating for the end of all renting.