Who should be able to buy houses?

[Iwassoclose]

For single dwelling houses should hedge funds,corporations, millionaires and billionaires be allowed to suck up all the small properties to then hold on to and rent out while they artificially inflate the market by creating scarcity? I am talking like a 2-4 bedroom houses for families.

I think houses shouldn't be used as a investments and instead used to be provide shelter and a better quality of living for the population.

[The Black Forrest]

Where do you live? That’s pretty much what is in play. Though I doubt Billionaires have much interest in single dwelling up to say quads.

Some of it is luck. Some sweat equity. Some inheritance., etc.

I own my house….well when the mortgage is paid off. I was lucky and time it right and the previous owner was a moron. Religious nut who was more interested in flying and bible stuff. If he had put upkeep into the house he easily would have gotten another 250K.

Should everybody have a proper shelter? Sure. It would also have to depend on proper water and other resources to support the citizens.

How to end homelessness? I don’t have an answer. Doubt it will happen in my lifetime. It will have to take a massive change in human nature to end it.

As to hedge funds? Sure fuck em. They tend to screw things up for their own gains.

Finally; anybody should be able to own a house. Now if you are expecting the current homeowners to all sacrifice value for others?……good luck with that……

[Atheris]

I mean... everyone, preferably. But not everyone wants a house. I know I don't. I'm perfectly fine with living in an apartment as long as the rent's cheap (enough), the landlord's at least a decent guy, and I can bring pets.

[Heloin]

Home ownership. If I want to play around with fantasies I might as well stick to DnD.

[Nilokeras]

No one should. Enclosing housing, like enclosing land, is an act of appropriation that turns something that is required for human survival into a commodity to be bought and sold and speculated upon.

[Saiwania]

I mean... everyone, preferably. But not everyone wants a house. I know I don't. I'm perfectly fine with living in an apartment as long as the rent's cheap (enough), the landlord's at least a decent guy, and I can bring pets.

Its a common perception that you're just throwing money away if you're renting as opposed to building equity in real estate or an asset that appreciates, and rents get raised every so often with inflation where as with a mortgage, you lock in what you bought it for, along with the interest rate if its fixed rate. Sometimes a mortgage is cheaper than renting and if you're staying, it perhaps makes more sense to buy than to rent.

With renting you avoid any maintenance costs or property taxes, and you can move whenever you want- but thats about it so far as upside goes. If renting, you're at the mercy of some landlord so far as when rent is raised or what amount you'll pay and you're essentially funding their mortgage or lifestyle in exchange for the space they're giving you to use.

I don't think I'd rent if the renting wasn't cheaper than a mortgage payment, unless investing the difference in something else like stocks could eventually result in enough capital to afford a decent down payment on a piece of real estate, if not to buy a house outright.

[Wizlandia]

For single dwelling houses should hedge funds,corporations, millionaires and billionaires be allowed to suck up all the small properties to then hold on to and rent out while they artificially inflate the market by creating scarcity? I am talking like a 2-4 bedroom houses for families.

I think houses shouldn't be used as a investments and instead used to be provide shelter and a better quality of living for the population.

Investing and renting homes is fine, and building houses and apartments should be encouraged. Right now in the States the biggest contributor to high housing costs are difficulties, both in the form of red-tape and outright prohibition through R1 zoning, in building apartments and other non-single family housing. It's the local municipalities and residents who want to protect their property values, not wealthy investors or multinational corporations, that are to blame for high housing prices.

To the extent that people are able to monopolise housing and charge above what would be above competitive rents, then regulation is warranted. But as far as I'm aware, this isn't an actual problem.

[Atheris]

I mean... everyone, preferably. But not everyone wants a house. I know I don't. I'm perfectly fine with living in an apartment as long as the rent's cheap (enough), the landlord's at least a decent guy, and I can bring pets.

Its a common perception that you're just throwing money away if you're renting as opposed to building equity in real estate or an asset that appreciates, and rents get raised every so often with inflation where as with a mortgage, you lock in what you bought it for, along with the interest rate if its fixed rate. Sometimes a mortgage is cheaper than renting and if you're staying, it perhaps makes more sense to buy than to rent.

With renting you avoid any maintenance costs or property taxes, and you can move whenever you want- but thats about it so far as upside goes. If renting, you're at the mercy of some landlord so far as when rent is raised or what amount you'll pay and you're essentially funding their mortgage or lifestyle in exchange for the space they're giving you to use.

I don't think I'd rent if the renting wasn't cheaper than a mortgage payment, unless investing the difference in something else like stocks could eventually result in enough capital to afford a decent down payment on a piece of real estate, if not to buy a house outright.

Man, I just hate houses and love apartments.

[Saiwania]

If the homeless can't afford houses, they need cheaper housing options and not more expensive ones like actual houses/buildings. In my mind, it should be sufficient to have the homeless get outdoor tents or live in military hangers/barracks which are easy to set up instead. The only true expense would be to find vacant land that can be used for an encampment.

[Senkaku]

the landlord's at least a decent guy

If the homeless can't afford houses, they need cheaper housing options and not more expensive ones like actual houses/buildings. In my mind, it should be sufficient to have the homeless get outdoor tents or live in military hangers/barracks which are easy to set up instead. The only true expense would be to find vacant land that can be used for an encampment.

yurts and flophouses, what an inspiring vision of modernity for the masses!

[British Home Nations]

Land value tax to tackle land monopoly and keep more vacant land in cities open to development and thus increase housing supply. Also, tackle onerous zoning laws to allow more development.

[Saiwania]

Tents with water, electricity, and sewage. And I'm on board.

If they want any of that, they can commute into town. The free shelter is supposed to be super cheap/accessible which inherently means less amenities. If they want a better living situation, in the end they'll have to become employed and earn their way out of poverty. This is typically how "moving up in the world" works.

[Senkaku]

Tents with water, electricity, and sewage. And I'm on board.

If they want any of that, they can commute into town. The free shelter is supposed to be super cheap/accessible which inherently means less amenities. If they want a better living situation, in the end they'll have to become employed and earn their way out of poverty. This is typically how "moving up in the world" works.

"they"? you're a self proclaimed NEET lmao, enjoy your tent (if you work for it maybe you'll be able to buy a chamber pot)

so much of your political posturing is just very thinly disguised self-hatred spilling outwards

[Saiwania]

"they"? you're a self proclaimed NEET lmao, enjoy your tent (if you work for it maybe you'll be able to buy a chamber pot)
so much of your political posturing is just very thinly disguised self-hatred spilling outwards

My solutions are at least practical in that it won't be expensive- except perhaps at scale. But it'd be cheap enough as to have more of society be willing to permit it. Few people in my mind truly want to work, but it is nonetheless what is most practical for most people. We just don't have machines that can do everything for us to the extent that everyone will live like kings/queens.

[Kilobugya]

Well, I'm a communist, I don't believe in private property of means of production, and that include houses you don't live in but use for speculation/renting. I believe no private entity (individual or companies) should be allowed to own real estate they don't regularly use as office or living place. For individual families, maybe allow a primary and a secondary residence, and that's it.

All the rest should be owned as a public service, runed by one government level (city or higher, doesn't really matter), and rented at fair rates, on a per-need basis (so the price would depend on people's income and household size), and with a free-usage (only paying for upkeep costs) after they paid as much as it would have costed them to buy it.

[Senkaku]

We just don't have machines that can do everything for us to the extent that everyone will live like kings/queens.

we literally do, what the fuck do you think nuclear reactors and factory farms are

most of us in the first world already live better than kings and queens of old; the takeaway here is that kings and queens of old still had really shitty and limited lives because of the technological constraints of their era, not that everyone in the here and now is doing great and doesn't deserve a better life

[Kilobugya]

We just don't have machines that can do everything for us to the extent that everyone will live like kings/queens.

we literally do, what the fuck do you think nuclear reactors and factory farms are

There are still lots of jobs which require human labor for now, but yes we do have the technological capacity to allow everyone a very comfortable life with much less labor input, so we should strive for more automation combined with better wealth distribution and strong lowering of working time, with many something like 28 hours working week, 6 to 8 weeks of paid vacations a year, and retirement at 60 for most jobs, 55 for jobs that involve painful/dangerous working conditions of night shifts.

[Major-Tom]

Well, the housing market (in the US, Canada) is currently in a bubble. I've done real estate as a side gig for a bit, and the problem isn't really just "investors" as it is there are always people who can afford ludicrously high prices (or make terrible financial decisions) in this sort of market. Matching the demand in North American cities to low levels of supply by easing zoning laws and will help, but unfortunately, this is one of those situations where prospective homeowners may need to wait.

I'd hate to be a 30 something buying an overvalued house in a shitty market only to find that in two, three years, the housing market will plunge like a fat kid down a waterslide. Food for thought.

As for renters, well, we need more equitable solutions to keep us afloat. Rent control works to an extent, but if I knew a silver bullet beyond that half-assed "band-aid approach" I'd be screaming it from the mountain tops.

If the homeless can't afford houses, they need cheaper housing options and not more expensive ones like actual houses/buildings. In my mind, it should be sufficient to have the homeless get outdoor tents or live in military hangers/barracks which are easy to set up instead. The only true expense would be to find vacant land that can be used for an encampment.

Public housing man, idk. It works if you have PMs that keep it tidy and establish boundaries.

[Saiwania]

Man, I just hate houses and love apartments.

In some markets, it is possible to purchase a unit within a building or apartment complex. If you buy an apartment, in practical terms, you're buying a condo. When you buy a condo, you’re usually buying only the interior space, but this gives you some freedom to customize it.

The downside is that you might have to pay maintenance dues periodically, because the building itself or the exterior is owned by the landlord or community. You also generally can't do anything to the exterior – such as painting your front door without permission. If your community is mostly owner-occupied, you’ll have to deal with some measure of enforced cooperation with your neighbors. Apartments often have community rules to follow that are set by the landlord. When you buy an apartment, it’s also possible that many of your neighbors will be renters, so frequent move-ins and move-outs are to be expected.

So I guess owning an apartment unit is like having a house, just with less living space, less privacy, and perhaps some disagreeable neighbors you can do less about in that situation.

[New haven america]

Everyone.

[The Free Joy State]

In parts of the UK, wealthy people buying second homes they hardly live in and making housing unaffordable for those with community ties is a problem. Also, giving council tenants the right-to-buy their council home did little but deplete housing stock, increase waiting lists for social housing and increase the rents people are forced to pay to private landlords (with just over 40% of homes bought under the scheme are now being rented out by private landlords). The lack of social housing has also led to families in the UK being housed in disused offices and shipping containers.

Ideally, no home would be in the hands of a private landlord. Homelessness will not end until all nations recognise that a home is a right and start building a lot more social housing, and also issue more compulsory purchase orders for homes that have been long-term abandoned (especially if they have fallen into disrepair, which may cause them to become the target of vandalism or dumping that may impact neighbouring properties).

Everyone who has worked for it should be able to buy a home for themselves and for their families (with the exception of a home built as social housing), but all this buy-to-let should be a thing of the past.

[Salus Maior]

As many people as possible.

[Wizlandia]

Land prices drive home prices. Basically it's a bad investment to build a cheap home on an expensive block. I don't think rezoning is going to help much with that, since it will leave people whose home isn't worth much (and was probably super-cheap considering also being "too far" from the city) much richer just because of their land footprint, but at the expense of more numerous people who have no choice but to live in an apartment at full building cost (because it's new) while investing in a theoretical patch of land which is tiny.

Buying land/houses in the suburbs are really expensive, and it's precisely because the local residents restrict housing supply. Allowing more dense housing to be built (through rezoning) will dramatically increase the supply of homes and reduce prices.

Monopoly isn't the only ill of a free market.

Never said it was. There are tons of market failures that don't arise because of monopolies.

There is also unbalanced supply and demand. It sucks to be part of excess supply, which does happen some places like abandoned suburbs (jobs dried up and/or people took loans they couldn't afford). But even worse is to be part of excess demand: those people who can't afford proper food because rent eats up all their paycheck or their benefits.

If you want to reduce prices and ensure affordable housing, you are going to need to increase the amount of housing. Rezoning is a cost-efficient way of increasing housing.

Even worse, homeless people who are so usually because they can't afford rent anywhere.

Homelessness is a multifaceted issue. Some people are homeless because they are either extremely poor or have mental health issues, others aren't particularly poor but still can't afford high levels of rents as seen in SF, NY, etc. The most straightforward way to reduce rent levels is to make it easier for more housing to be built, and allow competition to reduce prices. Beyond that, government run or subsidised housing can make up the shortfall for extremely poor people, or people with mental health problems.

Some kind of rent-controlled boarding house, with hot bunking or multiple beds to a room, would be the most straightforward solution to homelessness. Though only the "can't afford rent" kind, which is not all homelessness. Yes, I said rent-controlled, but that's less likely to lead to hoarding in this case, and is a step free-market wise compared to "homeless shelters".

Problem with rent-control is that it discourages investors to build or maintain housing, thus running into (and in fact exacerbating) the same fundamental problem of there isn't enough housing in places people want to live. Meanwhile, rent-controlling some housing and not doing the same for others forces the latter to absorb even higher prices/rents than would occur in a competitive market, as can be seen in Berlin.

"Hoarding" houses doesn't really exist. The vast amount of houses that don't have people living in them only last that way for a few months, and it occurs due to natural frictions in finding new tenants or buyers.

[Senkaku]

real question is why should we think of shelter-- a basic human need-- as simply another commodity

[Wizlandia]

real question is why should we think of shelter-- a basic human need-- as simply another commodity

Even if you think it's a basic human need and "not simply another commodity," the question still arises on how to best meet that need. Allowing investors to build and rent/sell housing units is a remarkably cost-efficient way to meet that need for the vast majority of people.

For the remaining people (very poor people or those with mental issues), government subsidised or run housing can make up the shortfall.