Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iaalaughlin t1_iudba8y wrote

A. It can be whatever is needed for the population, as appropriate.

B. If the pie is 1000 housing units, corporate landlords would get 300 of them, leaving 700 for people to purchase and live in. If the corporate landlords want more than 300 units, they can build more units, keep 30% and sell the rest.


Charlesinrichmond t1_iudqovn wrote

still a cap. Still a restriction in supply. Still a thousand year track record of not working.

Good way to make it impossible to rent though, corporate landlords would love this


iaalaughlin t1_iue7zzr wrote

The root question is do we want to become a nation of renters, or of homeowners?


Charlesinrichmond t1_iuft5ys wrote

homeowners absolutely.

But US home ownership rate is very good, 65.5% second highest it's been in history.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop encouraging it, but we should be realistic about how well we are doing, and what the real issue is, which is a shortage in the places people want to live because of single family zoning. A de facto cap is what created this situation


iaalaughlin t1_iufxzw0 wrote

You are wrong about it being the “second highest in history”

It’s even worse when you look at cities that have a high proportion of landlords that use yieldstar.


Charlesinrichmond t1_iuids2m wrote

so the site I googled was wrong, that'll take me to take the first hit. Your data set is obviously better.

That said, by your data, its still really really high, within a percentage point ex the ninja loan debacle


iaalaughlin t1_iuilvgw wrote

The question isn’t a matter of what the nation is doing though.

The question is what is Richmond doing. (Or whatever city you want to do this for.)

Richmond appears to be here:

Ownership rate is nearly 20 points below national average, and is at ~44%.

That feels troubling, but I’d like more recent data.

So, does Richmond want homeownership for its population or not?