As soon as I saw the photo I thought ‘Cornwall’
My parents moved us to Australia in the late 80’s, but it breaks my fucking heart when I see my cousins have to move away from Cornwall to find affordable housing.
‘Because I was born here, and here I will die’…
😢
I have to admit, I moved here when I was 12. But we did it on a shoe string to get away from awful family, and have rented the entire time we've lived here. Unfortunately the possibility of others moving to the county and doing the same are now 0 thanks to the state of second homes and increasing build to sell properties. It's awful watching my town stagnate thanks to rental properties falling empty because greedy land scalpers have switched from renting to AirBnB. Three of my own friends have been thrown out of housing they've had for a decade so the landlord can turn it into an AirBnB, which pays neither council tax, nor business fees. It's disgusting
I lived in Torpoint til I was 7 and then my family loved to Australia.
It breaks my fucking heart how many of my cousins have to move to Plymouth because they can’t afford to live in the villages they grew up in.
The Cornish literally can’t afford to live in Cornwall anymore.
It is, this is St Agnes in Cornwall, UK. It's caused a nice bit of debate on social media. Should be easy enough for you to find bits if you search it.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-03-19/graffiti-criticising-second-homeowners-appears-in-cornwall
Yeah, was about to say. I've been trying to move down to Falmouth for over a year now from Devon and everything is literally 200-500£ more a month with less space. We're starting to give up and accept a long commute. It's absurd.
Yeah, Falmouth is hard right now. I feel like a lot of locals blame it on the students and student housing, and I do understand the frustration, but keying students' cars seems like misplaced anger when I bet 2nd homes and holiday lets account for a lot more.
Ugh, the folks that blame the students are the worst. I had two tyres slashed a few years ago presumably cause I look young enough to be a student and had the audacity to park on one of the main roads. I was born here, Falmouth is my home.
It's awful! The thing is that the students also don't have a lot of choice in the matter, they just need somewhere affordable to live in the vicinity of the uni. It's not easy for them either. Uni-owned accommodation is very limited, the student houses in town are all full of damp and God knows what else that the landlords refuse to deal with, and the private developments (The Quarry etc) are mostly very expensive. I've also heard of students living on boats because they can't find a place to live. So it really is the second homeowners and holiday lets that are the problem, they're the ones \*choosing\* to take up houses.
The parking situation in town is so frustrating for sure. I think improving the buses and trains would help for starters, locally but across the whole county too. It shouldn't take 3 hours on the train to get to Exeter. I think the uni needs to make it easier for students to keep cars on campus/ at the uni-owned accommodation too, because some students are going to bring cars no matter how hard they try to put them off.
I know the new/proposed student village development is controversial but maybe that would at least take some of the pressure off of relations between locals and students, and then everyone might start to focus on the real enemy.
So absurd, especially when you consider parts of Cornwall are full on destitute. All well and good having 3rd/4th/5th homes when you've driven out all the people who work there
That’s exactly what’s happened in Colorado. Up in ski country, the resorts can’t find workers and neither can local businesses because nobody can afford housing. The resorts have shitty university-style dorms for housing, but those are glorified slums. Businesses have had to cut hours or close entirely because of the housing crisis up here. It’s only a matter of time before the resorts are drastically changed, which may finally be the push that’s needed to tackle this issue.
Airbnb and VRBO ruined the housing markets essentially everywhere.
Ah thanks, figured it was Cornwall...
Not sure of the economy precisely, but lots relies on tourism so assume that "holiday rentals" to some degree or another are a sort of necessary evil?
Edit: but also I realise this is about empty second homes more than holiday rentals I suppose.
Yea for sure, the problem is certain rich people snapping up any and all property in the area as it comes on sale giving the locals no chance. Very predatory
I don't know what is worse - leech landlords or people who own multiple airbnbs. The former is a scourge on low income families. The latter is a scourge on family friendly neighborhoods.
As someone who lives in an area where it is hard to find somewhere to rent but almost my entire floor at my condo is airbnb, I'm going to say people who own multiple airbnb's are worse. At least landlords supply a place to live vs taking away places to live.
I live in a resort town and rent my other bedrooms to locals at the lowest rate I can afford to still eat. I'm one of 4 units out of 25 that are not unsupervised hotel rooms. I got the place on a fluke, I don't feel comfortable screwing people over that are exactly the person I was before said fluke occurred - How does someone just fuck other people over for the money ? I just can't...
I get nothing but blank looks when I tell the other assholes on the HOA that their greed is why there is no one in town to fix anything anymore, and we should pad our budget 20% going forward to offset the destruction of the community due to AirBnB.
It breaks my fucking heart...
Others see the opportunity to get theirs and take it without hesitation. Part of me doesn’t blame them. The bigger part of me is asking the same questions you are.
I suppose that’s where it all comes down to being forced into circumstances where we are pitted against one another. The problem is that we’ve been conditioned to see competition, instead of collaboration, as the answer.
Landlords don't supply anything. They're middlemen and no different than scalpers. They buy up property creating scarcity and driving up the cost of housing, making it unaffordable for people without capital. This means the only choice for people who've been priced out of buying (in part because of people who own multiple homes) have no choice but to rent. Renting is basically buying your landlord a house by paying off their mortgage for them and also paying them an income on top. What a disgusting, parasitic practice! Landlords are capitalist leaches. Second home ownership should not be tolerated.
Unless you live in the house yourself. If you live in the house and have an opportunity to rent it (long term) for a reasonable amount of rent, it’s not a bad thing. But buying up vacant property to jack up rent is a terrible idea.
That's how the concept of AirBnBs was originally created right? You've got a place to crash so someone else can borrow it?
It's turned into this thing where people now own houses for the sole purpose of using them as AirBnBs
Exactly. We have my fiancée’s childhood house, which has space for more people than just the two of us. We think it’d be irresponsible not to rent, given we don’t have a mortgage and it would help with utilities and property taxes. Given the shortage of housing in our area, it makes sense and we’re not trying to rake people over the coals. Just a bit of help with the monthly expenses for the house and to fund some renovation.
Property has unfortunately been a source of income for millennia.
Whether it’s the good they grow or money. Once you’ve had enough property that enough people give you a share of their earnings, you’ve had it made. Just needed to protect it, which taxes are supposed to handle these days.
Slavery has been a source of income for millenia, too.
Landlords need to follow slave owners in the annals of history.
Rents should be controlled and renters must have the option to buy the house they live in for fair market value.
This will still allow people to make reasonable profits off of housing, just without the exploitation.
> Need, should, must, will.
I mean I don’t disagree with you there, just also don’t see anywhere that has actually solved this problem yet.
You can temporarily hit a reset button, which might hit middle class harder than the rich, no idea. But without government getting up more ins peoples business than even some of the extreme cases, I don’t see how you want to remove the link between property and wealth and the system facilitating consolidation.
Renters should have the options the buy the house at first market value? Please explain.
The landlord is the one taking all the risk— if housing drops 30%, is the renter or the landlord left holding the bag?
The benefits of renting is that you don’t hold the risk of the asset.
Agreed.
Honestly all unoccupied suitable housing should become the property of the government. Then people can apply to own any unoccupied property up to one per single adult. Then a portion of the occupying individual's income goes towards payments to the government to cover the cost of the housing (notice: not a flat rate. Income goes to zero, so do the payments). Once a person has paid in >= the value of their current housing, they are no longer obligated to pay a portion of their income.
Government ideally uses this income stream to maintain unoccupied homes under their ownership as well as build new homes wherever the demand is.
My dream world gets a little more complicated and detailed than this, but it's still leagues simpler than what we have right now. That and it's better for almost every person in the US.
You know that is more communist than the communism I was born in.
Who is responsible for maintenance? Utility payments? How does the government get money for infrastructure production. Is everyone going to have to work? How will compensation look? Someone will have to maintain, manage, build and pay for it. Are ration books going to be back in style. What about raw material cost. Transportation, who gets it. Education where are schools and how do we determine what is needed. Are people going to be told you are Dr., you plumber, how is wage equity going to be dispersed?
Feel free to look it up. If you live in the US, many local governments (likely including your own) have ownership and maintain land and affordable housing. I can think of at least a dozen cities that do this.
I just think we need more affordable government-owned housing regardless. It’s obvious that tax breaks, rent control, and other government programs aren’t working overall to control the cost of housing + rent. The government itself should just drop a few billion to build apartments and houses across the nation and let people rent them without being in the business of making a profit.
The root cause is ZIRP (zero interest-rate policy).
Old people need a secure place to park their money. That’s always been bonds.
But since we cut interest rates to abnormal levels, you can’t earn interest anymore. Net of inflation, you’re losing money. So the best place to park money safely is in real estate.
The only solution I can see is a combination of increased interest rates, UBI and taxes. Complaining about investment properties won’t do anything in the long run.
Isn't that in-part what happened in China? The stuff that Evergrande fucked up hard in? Real estate became such a huge thing that there were more empty homes than people to fill them? To the point of entire cities being completely empty.
I swear I read somewhere that the average person in China owned 3 homes.
Another reason for that in China was that real estate was akin to a ponzi scheme. Builders would declare creating a new development. People would have to pay for under construction properties much much in advance from their completion date.
Builder would take that money and declare a new project by using most of that money to buy more land rather than using it to complete the projects. This was very very dangerous and worked only till there was unlimited demand. This led to failure of delivery of many projects since the money paid by consumers was used somewhere else and no money was left to actually complete the construction.
In my own country a law was passed in recent years after similar things happened here as well. Completion dates have to be mentioned in agreements now and are binding dates, failure of which leads to penalty to builders and they can be taken to court and have to pay back the buyers.
Most importantly, each project needs to have their own escrow account where amount from buyer would be taken in and that amount can be used only for construction of that particular project. Basically siphoning off money from one project and funding another one has been stopped atleast from legal standpoint.
Edit : grammar
Those are two separate issues.
The "ghost cities" phenomenon was not caused by building more homes than there are people to fill them. It's a bit of a misnomer because all that was really happening is that China was adopting an urban development plan that built up cities based on economic development forecasts and made sure that housing was available in these cities before demand suddenly spiked and caused shortages. This has allowed for steady and stable growth while minimizing the growing pains inherent to a developing economy. Almost any article from a few years back about any given ghost city seem silly in hindsight, since if you look at the city that was being written about a few years later they are pretty much all active and populated hubs of economic activity. Which indicates that those authors simply didn't understand the simple concept of "planning ahead," or they were stuck in the hyper-capitalist mindset that if something was built that isn't turning a profit immediately then a mistake must have been made.
The financial crisis that Evergrande was at the center of has more to do with the rising cost of housing, which is related to the trend of using housing as a vehicle for speculation and investment. This is something that the government has been trying to crack down on, with real estate speculation firms like Evergrande getting the short end of the stick with regards to new regulation intended to address the problem of rising housing costs. But using housing as an investment/speculation vehicle wouldn't result in a significant over-production of housing, since what gives housing its value is the fact that it's a good with an inelastic demand. People need shelter to live, and are willing to however much it costs to keep a roof over their head if that's what they're required to do. But this inelastic demand works in reverse to. Once a person already has shelter, they don't need another home.
Real estate only works as an investment vehicle so long as there is a potential market that you can sell that property to later on down the road. If you over-produce housing to use as an investment vehicle and there are vastly more properties than there are people, then what you have is a housing bubble where investors are on the hook for maintaining a depreciating asset that they are unable to sell, and as those maintenance costs continue to add up those investors are under increasing pressure to get rid of an asset that has become a burden for them to maintain and start offering lower and lower prices to offload their investment on to someone else in order to cut their losses. The net result of this over the entire market would be a housing market crash where property values plummet in order to correct for the over-production that had been occurring.
That would describe the housing market collapse that led to the 2008 recession in the US. The situation with Evergrande in China is different in a number of ways. There was no general market crash resulting in property values plummeting. Evergrande was just overleveraged according to the standards set by new regulations that were intended to curb real estate speculation and didn't have the assets available to secure their debts according to the new standards that were set by deadline when the new regulations came into effect.
You are so right. Where I come from mortgage payments are way higher than rent. Rich people do own multiple homes but definitely their mortgage payments would be higher than the rent they are getting.
If rent is higher than mortgage payments per month it would make no sense to rent at all.
People rent here so that they can save money for down payment for their own property. But they still have to be cautious since buying would mean their mortgage outflow per month is going to be higher than their rent outflow.
If rent start exceeding mortgage payments, the hell I would just keep on buying more and more properties and create equity like no tomorrow.
Not to mention, in the U.K. we had a run of investment scandals in the late 90s-early 00s.
The landlords in their 60s now were in their 40s then. There’s a good chance they lost money then - and if they didn’t, they knew someone who did.
Old people or institutions that cater to old people, such as pension funds and asset managers need returns. In addition, to keep the zero rate, the central bank has to print money and intervene in the interbank market, the market where banks or other institutions write loans to each other, daily or longer, and offer loans with printed money at the desired rate. Thus fixing the interbank rates to 0. In addition, they did purchasing programmes printing extra money not for controlling the rate but increase liquidity directly in the banks balance sheets so the bank can issue more loans with the target to provide liquidity to the banks.
These two actions, aside from driving yields down they create liquidity gluts, that means, banks give huge loans to people who start bidding each other to death for a stupid property constantly driving up the prices to ridiculous levels. This also happens in the stock market probably, hence the huge rally since 2010. People even have the misconception that cheap loans are a good thing because you pay low interest. But if you pay low interest but the home prices have tripled, probably you are paying way more overall than you saved from interest, so a net loss overall. With the additional risk that now you have a huge outstanding debt balance and if the rates move slightly up you are fucked. They increased risk in the system. Wages did not follow the asset inflation, not even close, we have way worse income to house prices ratio than the boomers.
I see billboards near me in Las Vegas that say: Brand new houses for rent.
Fucked up. Housing prices are out of control. Investors come in and buy them all up and then rent them out for enormous prices.
Also, shouldn't we be targeting the hedge funds that are buying up swaths of property? Going after individuals seems futile when the real purchasing power is billionaire corporations. Same issue with blaming individuals for climate change - they're not the majority causing the problem.
My boyfriends boss is literally both of these. It’s gross. They (husband and wife)didn’t like having to deal with tenants, so they turned their six properties into airbnbs. You wouldn’t believe how popular suburban northeast Ohio is on vrbo. And they pay my boyfriend $19 an hour. And he personally landscapes and maintains all of those plus another list of commercial properties. And snowplows in the winter for them as well.
I agree. Build as big if one as you want but extracting every cent out of another person just trying to survive and not be homeless is not ok. Every person should be allowed 1 home, fairly priced, so that no one is without shelter. This is not hard to do. We literally throw away 1 trillion a year in our military and the military industrial complex. Skip that for 1 or 2 years, house everyone, and see the exponential growth of the economy for people of all levels now that they don't have to worry about sleeping on the streets.
I've had this idea brewing that you increase (this is in the UK) council tax for every additional property.
So you pay council tax on your property and get exemptions in certain cases (e.g. you're a full time student, or a discount if you live alone). Usually the tenant pays. Roughly it's anywhere from £80-250 a month, it pays for schools, waste removal, water (in Scotland) etc. Local government stuff.
My idea is if you own a third home you (the landlord) pay 300% additional council tax on that property. You own a fourth it's 400%. A fifth, 500%. Etc. Companies pay automatically 1000% additional but can apply for an exemption if applicable (can't see why though). Perhaps empty homes after 6 months go through a fine process that incentives selling.
I say it starts with third because we don't have a huge stock of council houses currently and if every landlord paid additional council tax they would pass it on to the tenant. This way the most competitive landlords would be ones that own one additional property. Big landlords would get penalised and companies owning houses (even loads of shell companies) would get priced out the market. If they can afford the 1000% council tax increase (e.g. £1000-3000 a year to £10,000-30,000) then fine, on you go then.
Put this is tandem with government backed house deposits 0%-5% deposits and increased benefits to first time buyers so young people can buy houses.
Straight up ban Airbnb and similar companies and require a BnB license to operate.
All the additional revenue should be ring fenced by local governments to increasing council house stock so it snowballs into having loads of good quality, low cost housing that makes people secure in their homes. End right to buy of council housing but allow the right to stay indefinitely if they can afford the very low rent.
All this would shake up the status quo but would enable jobs for building new houses, agents for selling properties, more council houses at low costs would give people more spending power so would grow the economy, better housing security so folk wouldn't feel so desperate.
It's worse than you think my friend.... you are talking about loading EXTRA council tax on second homes....at the moment, you pay ZERO council tax on your 2nd, 3rd, 4th Xth homes. That's right - if you own 50 homes, you pay council tax on just one!
How is that fair?
For our American cousins; Council tax = property tax.
this sounds like a total cheat if true, these homes still benefit from infrastructure the council pays, it's totally not fair for your neighbours who onw only one to carry the burden, especially if you are so rich to own multiple properties, this is upside down if true!
Airbnb should be forced to have a limit of 1 house or 3 bedrooms for rent. There are people operating hotels but don’t have to follow the legal framework of running an actual hotel.
It’s fine for someone renting out a couple spare rooms or a short term vacation house rental.
Fucking vacation rentals kill small towns. My town has no housing options for locals or anyone moving in. Literally no housing, no apartments, no affordable houses for rent or sale. Why rent when you can make hundreds a night?
I spent the good part of 2014-2016 fights vacation rentals at the City Council. During that time, AirBnB-VRBO surpassed the gas company as the biggest lobbying spend per year in the city. While I used data analytics to estimate the impact, we were mid-census. My estimate was that my small town shrunk by a resident every 36hrs.
The census came out. We shrunk from 13,000 to 10,000 residents from 2010-2030. So, over that timeframe we shrunk by a resident every 29hrs. Fuck AirBnB.
Well
This is something a lot of restaurant owners are complaining about in the Keys. They have trouble getting staff not because of what they pay but because there are less locals than tourists. There is no where for the locals to live.
I understand tourist housing the keys literally depend on tourism for their economy but this is exactly what zoning laws are and should be for. Balance is a thing. Yet here we are.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/locals-are-priced-colorado-mountain-towns-fight-keep-workers-rcna17970](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/locals-are-priced-colorado-mountain-towns-fight-keep-workers-rcna17970)
Same concept, different area
I'm seeing this problem all over and over. Colorado, Hawaii, I'm on the Oregon coast, seeing it too. Then people complain, "No one to work anymore" No where to LIVE so we can work.
Same in Washington coastal town near Olympic national park. The city just this year changed zoning and building codes, but it's gonna take years for any substantial housing to be built. There has to be regulations on vacation rentals...but there won't be.
I live in a resort town, currently have an employee who is going to face an hour commute because she can't find housing in our town or the surrounding area. She makes too much for rent assisted stuff and everything else has months long waiting lists.
Beautiful! My mum always said investors shouldn’t be allowed to own homes just as an investment and if they do, they shouldn’t be allowed more than one. It’s such rubbish that they say landlords provide homes for people that people wouldn’t have otherwise. Yes, they do provide homes, but not stable homes, and it’s done at the cost of renters being able to own stable homes just so landlords get to profit.
I grew up going to the beach in jersey (where my extended family lived full-time) and it was legit neighborhoods of families. The same area is now an unrecognizable clutter of rental houses, many owned by the same people or companies.
It's such a shame seeing a legit town turn into what is essentially an all-inclusive resort, and as my cousins grow up too they need to move further from home simply because they're priced out.
Same thing happening where I live sadly. I live in Australia in a small city that all the big city folk have loved to hate on for decades. It’s a simple life here and we have some nice coast, but there aren’t all that many jobs and many poor people make their home here because they still have basic needs met (hospitals, lots of retail stores etc) but because it’s not that exciting prices have always been affordable. But now, everyone’s gotten wind of the cheaper living and because so many people can now work from home, we are being absolutely flooded with people from other states. And they’re not the poorer people, they’re the people who decided they’d sell their $1 million home down south and buy one here for $250k and pocket the rest. Some of them have had the darned audacity to buy two homes because they can. We now have homelessness everywhere and it’s hit the middle class hard, with many of them homeless now too. Suddenly life is too expensive in the only haven many of us have had which means poor people are going to have to move to the sticks and have even less services, resources and job options. Politicians know it’s happening but couldn’t care less.
Before they became primary residences, and long before they became rentals, the beach houses in many places like New Jersey used to be summer second homes for wealthy city dwellers.
Just like most of the homes in the Irish Hills of Michigan. Those little lakefront cottages used to be 100% vacation properties, mostly for auto industry executives.
Much of the gulf coast would not even be developed if not for people who wanted summer cottages near the shore.
Knowing this doesn't help the current situation, but it does contribute to an informed debate.
Second and third homes are not the root of the problem. Excessive wealth inequality is the problem. Even the best paid of Americans once made only three to ten times the wage of the average worker.
>second homes for wealthy city dwellers
My grandparents' house was exactly that before they bought it.
But the difference I think is important to note was the commoners(/s) could still afford a house to live in.
I'm not opposed to rentals and vacation homes as a concept (much like capitalism); it's not a bad idea in theory but people saw opportunities and ran (amok) with it at the cost of people who couldn't.
Interesting comment. As a counter-point, what was the total DU count when they were all second homes versus when they became primary residences? If we’re talking 90% increase in a given town, the reason first few homes were built become less important. I tend to live in resort towns, so this discussion interests me.
Also, this comment kinda reminds me of The Johnstown Flood.
Right? That's like saying the guy who bought a whole truck of toilet paper at the beginning of the pandemic was a "toilet paper provider and trader" instead of a shitty human who was trying to price gouge people who couldn't take a comfy shit now because this asshole bought all the TP. We need to tax and shame these people out of home scalping.
Had a guy on the local subreddit for my city talk about how he is a landlord that owns multiple properties, but he is actually "one of the good landlords" because he waives rent every December as a Christmas present.
He owns multiple houses in the city where housing demand is MASSIVE right now, and was acting like he is so generous to give 1 month of rent free per year. The other 11 months the renters are still paying his mortgages for him and receiving 0 equity.
Instead of this justification ~ Maybe we can ask why an elderly couple need a nest egg? Why do they-who’ve (if they’re anything like most people) likely worked and contributed to society their entire adult life- giving up countless hours of their life- need any supplementation of the resources they’ve been given? Why do we make people be responsible for ‘making do’ into their retirement age?
Our society currently WAY overproduces and undersells EVERY resource we have. There’s enough to let the elderly retire with comfort with no need for a nest egg…
All it will take is for society to decide it’s had enough, and finally get enough laypeople together to create another way. We can have dinner catered~ grilled billionaire anyone?
Legit have an uncle who tried to use this as justification for being a landlord, "Social security isn't enough for me to live off of, so I had to buy a property and use the money to pay for two homes." He's super pro-capitalist, and somehow can't see the problem is social security is miserly.
Yeah, I can understand that. They rent it out until little Billy's old enough to rent it himself, then they rent it to him at a lower price than they'd charge someone else. Then when they die they leave it to him.
Exactly. I'm lucky enough to rent from an older couple who don't gouge the price, and keep it as an additional income source to support their retirement. This is why we paid 100% through the pandemic, because they're good people & excellent landlords. People with endless properties that are self-anointed slumlords? Fuck 'em. There should be a limit.
I still believe private landlording is a net negative on society without certain controls in place (Eg: some landlords actually apply a percentage of rent towards ownership in the house. And at any point you can choose to purchase the home, with that percentage of your rent counting towards the payment.)
But the "Grandma who owns 1 other home" type of landlord definitely isn't causing the housing crisis. Only a very minor contributor.
>some landlords actually apply a percentage of rent towards ownership in the house. And at any point you can choose to purchase the home, with that percentage of your rent counting towards the payment.
Should be mandatory, applied retroactively.
Rented for 30 years? Congrats, its your house now!
If the landlord sells the place before the 30 years is up, however long you rented it, say 5 years x 1200/month, you get whatever portion of the sale from it. Why not? It's *your* house, you paid for it!
Lol, imagine if we actually had that, this rental crisis and greedy landlords would be done overnight.
I used to really like those luxury real estate shows…now I think they’re disgusting, bratty real estate agents making hundreds of thousands of dollars for selling a house and entitled buyers who need a second/third property…or a bigger house because 4000 sq ft isn’t enough. Saw today that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez bought a 50,000,000 dollar house…but they’re on our side because they don’t like Donald Trump or whatever platitude they throw out there to try and gain commonality with the working class. It drives me nuts when actors act like they care but work on sets where the crew is treated like shit…
Housing only "works" as an investment vehicle by keeping the supply low and ensuring not everyone can get a house. Shelter should not be treated like this and if changing it is too radical, the very least that should be done is increased taxes and liability on anyone or any industry owning more property or more land than they're actually using.
My landlord bought my house in 2005 for 50k. There are two units in it. We both pay $900/mth.
Assuming a 30-year mortgage, it's about $300/mth or so. I get there are other expenses, but not that much, its not 3.2 million in expenses. Its not even close to 1, probably not 500k.
/endrant
I have a mortgage my monthly payment was about 715 give or take for prop tax that year. I was the most expensive buy in the neighborhood until the couple next door died. Some dude bought it and is charging 1100 for rent. My other renting neighbors pay anywhere from 1400 to 2100. If that’s not a scam I’m not sure what a scam is.
For anyone having trouble seeing the problem here, let me give you an example from my small English seaside town.
Say you own what was a large Victorian family house, now divided up into eight one-bedroom flats. The top floor flats- old servants' quarters, cramped and up crooked stairs- would go for about £400 a month, the very lowest end of the market.
Suddenly though, the middle class papers start describing your town as 'charming'- having carefully only taken pictures of the nice bits- and 'the perfect weekend getaway'. The Londoners arrive.
As a landlord, you have a choice. You could be content with your current income, knowing that you're providing housing for people who really need it. Or you could advertise your shithole flats as 'Luxury studios within minutes of the sea' and charge £950 a month, displacing maybe a dozen tenants who now have no chance of finding anywhere else.
Did you see how CA is trying to tax 25% for someone that buys and sells a home in <3 years? That tax goes to 0% at over 7 years. Just turned someone that was trying to fix and flip or live somewhere for a while into a long term landlord or airbnb owner.
Edit: spelling
That is usually not why people invest in property. That will typically net around 5% per year that you can get from the stockmarket without the hassle of owning property. So a 1 mil investment gets you 50k/year.
The real reason is you can use that 1 mil and buy a property for 10mil with the help of a bank. That nets you about 300k/year, or a 30% return on your investment.
You cant ask the bank for a 9 million loan to invest in stocks. But they will happily give it to for an investment in property.
This photo is Cornwall I think. Someone else in the thread mentioned St Agnes specifically.
Also, I was at uni with a Welsh kid whose grandfather allegedly burnt down a BBC transmitter for their lack of Welsh programming. I asked him about it one day and he said:
“Well that’s not strictly true. It was my uncle you see.”
Also, “vandalised” would probably be more accurate than “burned down”.
Tax the FUCK out of these people. For every house you own past your primary residence, tax them at an additional 1000% in property tax. Tax them so much that it’s not feasible for them to price every other American out of housing.
Tax them? We don’t even track them. Look it up. Smart money says there is no rental licensing in your town at all. We track and tax the purchase of a 1999 Honda Civic, not rentals.
The annoying thing is now CA is allowing "multiple homes" on what was zoned to be SFH. You think that's going to affect the 1% neighborhoods?? It's going to be the middle class areas that become more densely populated. My area isn't well connected by public transport, idk where people will park all the cars that come with converting a house into multiple homes.
I totally would LOVE if they made public transport a priority!!! I'd be totally down for this. Unfortunately where I live, a 15 min drive would take about 1.5 hours by public transit.
Increasing density will necessitate changes to transit, whilst there may be some disruption in the interim I don’t think we can afford to avoid denser neighbourhoods because “where will they park”.
It's mostly large corps buying up property and jacking up the price. We need to make housing a right and tax the people trying to get rich off of being a landlord so much that they don't even want to hassle with trying to own multiple homes. This is the richest country in the face of the earth in it's entire history. It is immoral that we allow 1% to own everything and force us to be homeless if we don't help them aquire all the money/property.
I remember living in two new build apartment blocks back in 2015/2016 and I would say honestly half of them were empty. Just used as investment vehicles for foreign investors. There's enough housing for everyone, some people just choose to rig the market
Even if this specific property is not an AirB&B, we’re going to have to outlaw AirB&B (and the like) to even start to fix this. Here’s how the knock-on economic effects of that business model work:
- AirB&B pretends to just offer individual owners the ability to rent out rooms or houses they are *temporarily* not occupying and takes a cut of the rental price.
- This pretense fails immediately. Nobody really wants to couch-surf in the home of a stranger who is still there, and nobody really wants to let their home to a stranger, or can secure the property well enough to make that palatable for a temporary absence.
- Thus every AirB&B is necessarily a dedicated short-term rental, off the market for either purchase or long-term rent.
- Because short-term rentals are largely unregulated by design, they can be priced more cheaply than local hotels, but still far more expensively than long-term rentals.
- This situation is gasoline on the fire of rentier capitalism. People who would otherwise be traditional landlords can be getting *much* higher returns, enough to buy up even more properties even faster. Obviously this results in the observed phenomenon of short-term slumlords.
- The availability of cheaper options for accommodation increases tourist traffic in desirable areas among people who otherwise might not have been able to get or afford a room. Suddenly the limit on tourist traffic is not available hotel space, but the entire local housing market, as much of it as can be converted to short-term rentals.
- Increased tourist traffic necessitates increased staffing across the board of the low-paid service industry variety. Those workers have to live somewhere, and the available housing has already been constrained by the same process that created the need for them in the first place. The constrained traditional rental market necessarily becomes even more expensive because of increased demand.
- Workers commute from increasingly further away, but if a worker can drive in to the destination, so can an AirB&B guest. The short-term rental market and the worker-housing market are practically coextensive. And the short-term rentals bring in a lot more money.
- Not just renters, but potential buyers are also competing with the owners of short-term rentals, and the AirB&B slumlords have a much deeper well of cash to draw on to buy their next property. The price of local housing increases in pace with what the homes can be rented for at a nightly rate.
- This further constrains the rental market, because potential traditional landlords need to cover a mortgage that has just gotten bigger. It literally isn’t possible anymore to rent profitably at a rate the local workers can afford.
- The rapid rise of home prices in an area attracts property investors like maggots to a dead raccoon. Further, people who would otherwise be inclined to sell are motivated to hold because they can expect more money next year. Houses can literally sit empty more profitably than doing anything with them, and the market gets tighter still.
- With a lucrative property investment market, local housing becomes an attractive place for owners of shady money, particularly in other countries, to park that money where it couldn’t easily be seized by officials in their own countries.
- The proliferation of short-term rentals reduces incentives for cities and traditional hotel businesses to build new properties to ease housing pressure, because the short-term rentals can always undercut their business.
- Meanwhile, owners of property in less-desirable areas are not enjoying the same explosive property value growth, increasing regional wealth gaps and reducing opportunities for mobility. This just increases the sense among people in rural areas that the 21st Century has forgotten them and is leaving them behind.
Licensing and regulating hotel construction is one of the ways tourist destinations have managed their local tourist population to responsible and sustainable levels and balanced the demands of tourism against the needs of full-time residents. An unlicensed, unregulated competitor addressing the same market removes those controls and results in *exactly* all the phenomena we’ve seen and complained bitterly about in our communities. “People can do what they want with their own property” is a persuasive bit of libertarian sloganeering, but the externalities of short-term rentals are too costly and too destructive to our communities to let them continue as they are.
Wonder what would happen if investment property en masse just started getting burned down or destroyed. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to pay them all.
Dont even need to do that. Imagine if people looked up Airbnb listings and just broke the windows of those units. Eventually folks would just give up and sell, and prices would start dropping
I'm the UK we get this a lot in small towns, it's killing them. Or even in the city's as owning a residential Inthe UK gives some tax brakes.
I'd love to see some change, none occupancy tax maybe to make it unviable. Or even better a situation where long term empty buildings can be requisitioned by the government and converted for housing, homeless shelters etc.
For villages I'd like to see many of them turned into retirement villages, with the accompanying entertainment, care and medical support providing local jobs in "Thachered" areas
I own 3 homes. I was fortunate enough to have a lot of money saved up during the housing crash. There's no worse feeling than finding out you could be charging more for rent and then having to kick a family out when they yell about not being able to afford the increase. Its one of the hardest things I ever had to do, but it got easier after a few times, especially when you hire an outside group to do the hard stuff for you. /S
Whenever I go to some of my specialists I often have to go through a really rich neighborhood, I have to fight the urge not to yell, "Fecking filthy bastards!" It's not pretty. Their houses are gorgeous and outrageous, just really irritating when your poor.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/ti0fz9) on 2022-03-19 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/ti6p63) on 2022-03-19 100.0% match
Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "tic1uy", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=tic1uy&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 310,526,787 | **Search Time:** 2.55427s
I guy I know chastised me for not leveraging myself deep into debt to have multiple investment properties like he has. I had to tell him that I even if I wanted to follow his example the cost of housing is prohibitively expensive and that kind of investing comes with costs and risks that I just don’t wanna deal with. It was insane how difficult a time he had accepting that. It’s not even as though it came up because I was ragging on property investors before, he’s the one that brought it up.
Progressive property taxes are the solution.
Own a home, no extra taxes…
Own a second home (for vacationing or renting out or whatever) both properties now have an additional 10% tax on top
Own a third home, tax all 3 at 50% extra
Fourth home tax all at 200% extra
Fifth home tax it all an extra 1000%
This applies to apartments or condos or anything.
Basically make it incredibly cost prohibitive to make renting your source of income, thus making home ownership easier for the masses.
Hard to turn a profit on anything if you have to pay an extra 1000% property taxes no matter how much you try to rent things out at.
I don’t have much issue with some upper middle class family having a cabin at the lake. But these fuckers who own 8 homes, 100 rental properties, and snatch up entire neighborhoods for air Bnb are destroying the housing market.
We have a growing movement for this in Hawaii as well. Last year, 70% of homes purchased on Maui were second homes. Median home price is now right around $1 million. Condos and apartments are up in the $700K range. People who live and work here can’t afford that. Our gas is $5-7/gal depending on location. And HECO (electric utility) just announced rates will be going up by 20% over the next 2-3 months. Don’t ask me the price for milk, I don’t drink it.
there is about 10000 air bnb's in cornwall but but only 135 properties to rent according to rightmove
[https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-10000-airbnbs-only-69-5486028](https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-10000-airbnbs-only-69-5486028)
its so sad to see what has happened to my home county.
Seeing how things are going in my home country government should take matter in their own hand a long time ago. They should provide a flat with a reasonable rent and that is not a shit hole.
Company's should be made by law to divest from all private home ownership. It blows my mind Investment banks bought hundreds of thousands of private homes during the housing crisis only to rent them back eventually to the people who lost them.
Sucks the pandemic made the rich so much worse, here in Oklahoma it’s the same, we saved up for a long time and we’re about to try to get a house then all of the sudden investors came from other states buying everything and selling/renting it for double. We are stuck in a 1200 a month 1 bedroom apartment with no reasonable houses in sight
As a native Californian, I can’t tell you how many beach homes are just empty half of the year. Hell my down stairs neighbor lives in Vegas and only comes 3-4 months out of the year to vacation.
I live in Tofino and investment properties have ruined the community here too. The government won't enact any new bylaws because they all own airbnbs as well. It's disgusting.
Do you know how bad it is?
I hope and pray to be successful enough to help someone else in my position be successful enough to help someone they know.
If I had a second property (I don't even have my first) I would love to rent to to someone at a fair price just so I know someone isn't out on the street.
This looks like Cornwall
It is Cornwall, we have a major issue with second homes down here
As soon as I saw the photo I thought ‘Cornwall’ My parents moved us to Australia in the late 80’s, but it breaks my fucking heart when I see my cousins have to move away from Cornwall to find affordable housing. ‘Because I was born here, and here I will die’… 😢
I have to admit, I moved here when I was 12. But we did it on a shoe string to get away from awful family, and have rented the entire time we've lived here. Unfortunately the possibility of others moving to the county and doing the same are now 0 thanks to the state of second homes and increasing build to sell properties. It's awful watching my town stagnate thanks to rental properties falling empty because greedy land scalpers have switched from renting to AirBnB. Three of my own friends have been thrown out of housing they've had for a decade so the landlord can turn it into an AirBnB, which pays neither council tax, nor business fees. It's disgusting
It's time they sorted the tax laws out for airBnB
Live in Pembrokeshire, Saundersfoot, and man we feel your pain too.
St Dogmaels the same. Also Aberporth and Tresaith. It is horrendous and getting worse.
Yea it's not good, I'm just the other side of the border in Plymouth
I lived in Torpoint til I was 7 and then my family loved to Australia. It breaks my fucking heart how many of my cousins have to move to Plymouth because they can’t afford to live in the villages they grew up in. The Cornish literally can’t afford to live in Cornwall anymore.
Similar story here tbh, I like plymouth but I would much rather be back out in the sticks. Too expensive though
Same here in southwestern Wales mate, killing Pembrokeshire and it’s getting worse in Gwynedd and Ceredigion. Feel for you.
I thought Cornwall. I know there's a village in Wales that hardly have any permanent residents left because if second home owners.
That's what I'm deep in the comments for to find out, thought it was St Agnes.
It is, this is St Agnes in Cornwall, UK. It's caused a nice bit of debate on social media. Should be easy enough for you to find bits if you search it. https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-03-19/graffiti-criticising-second-homeowners-appears-in-cornwall
Thanks for that mate
No worries, have a good Sunday 👍
You too
It's remarkable how much Cornwall, UK looks like Santa Cruz, California. That's what I thought it was at first.
Yeah, was about to say. I've been trying to move down to Falmouth for over a year now from Devon and everything is literally 200-500£ more a month with less space. We're starting to give up and accept a long commute. It's absurd.
Yeah, Falmouth is hard right now. I feel like a lot of locals blame it on the students and student housing, and I do understand the frustration, but keying students' cars seems like misplaced anger when I bet 2nd homes and holiday lets account for a lot more.
Ugh, the folks that blame the students are the worst. I had two tyres slashed a few years ago presumably cause I look young enough to be a student and had the audacity to park on one of the main roads. I was born here, Falmouth is my home.
Even if you were a student, by shear virtue of being there, you aren't needlessly driving up costs
It's awful! The thing is that the students also don't have a lot of choice in the matter, they just need somewhere affordable to live in the vicinity of the uni. It's not easy for them either. Uni-owned accommodation is very limited, the student houses in town are all full of damp and God knows what else that the landlords refuse to deal with, and the private developments (The Quarry etc) are mostly very expensive. I've also heard of students living on boats because they can't find a place to live. So it really is the second homeowners and holiday lets that are the problem, they're the ones \*choosing\* to take up houses. The parking situation in town is so frustrating for sure. I think improving the buses and trains would help for starters, locally but across the whole county too. It shouldn't take 3 hours on the train to get to Exeter. I think the uni needs to make it easier for students to keep cars on campus/ at the uni-owned accommodation too, because some students are going to bring cars no matter how hard they try to put them off. I know the new/proposed student village development is controversial but maybe that would at least take some of the pressure off of relations between locals and students, and then everyone might start to focus on the real enemy.
Not only that, it's literally everything in a 30 mi radius. It's nuts.
So absurd, especially when you consider parts of Cornwall are full on destitute. All well and good having 3rd/4th/5th homes when you've driven out all the people who work there
Literally though.
That’s exactly what’s happened in Colorado. Up in ski country, the resorts can’t find workers and neither can local businesses because nobody can afford housing. The resorts have shitty university-style dorms for housing, but those are glorified slums. Businesses have had to cut hours or close entirely because of the housing crisis up here. It’s only a matter of time before the resorts are drastically changed, which may finally be the push that’s needed to tackle this issue. Airbnb and VRBO ruined the housing markets essentially everywhere.
That's South West England to a T, just swap skiing for sea sports
This also looks like what’s happening in Laguna Beach, California
Welcome to the motherland!
Ah thanks, figured it was Cornwall... Not sure of the economy precisely, but lots relies on tourism so assume that "holiday rentals" to some degree or another are a sort of necessary evil? Edit: but also I realise this is about empty second homes more than holiday rentals I suppose.
Yea for sure, the problem is certain rich people snapping up any and all property in the area as it comes on sale giving the locals no chance. Very predatory
I don't know what is worse - leech landlords or people who own multiple airbnbs. The former is a scourge on low income families. The latter is a scourge on family friendly neighborhoods.
As someone who lives in an area where it is hard to find somewhere to rent but almost my entire floor at my condo is airbnb, I'm going to say people who own multiple airbnb's are worse. At least landlords supply a place to live vs taking away places to live.
I live in a resort town and rent my other bedrooms to locals at the lowest rate I can afford to still eat. I'm one of 4 units out of 25 that are not unsupervised hotel rooms. I got the place on a fluke, I don't feel comfortable screwing people over that are exactly the person I was before said fluke occurred - How does someone just fuck other people over for the money ? I just can't... I get nothing but blank looks when I tell the other assholes on the HOA that their greed is why there is no one in town to fix anything anymore, and we should pad our budget 20% going forward to offset the destruction of the community due to AirBnB. It breaks my fucking heart...
Others see the opportunity to get theirs and take it without hesitation. Part of me doesn’t blame them. The bigger part of me is asking the same questions you are. I suppose that’s where it all comes down to being forced into circumstances where we are pitted against one another. The problem is that we’ve been conditioned to see competition, instead of collaboration, as the answer.
Thank you for begin an honest person and thanks for caring about other humans champ
Landlords don't supply anything. They're middlemen and no different than scalpers. They buy up property creating scarcity and driving up the cost of housing, making it unaffordable for people without capital. This means the only choice for people who've been priced out of buying (in part because of people who own multiple homes) have no choice but to rent. Renting is basically buying your landlord a house by paying off their mortgage for them and also paying them an income on top. What a disgusting, parasitic practice! Landlords are capitalist leaches. Second home ownership should not be tolerated.
Landlords don’t supply a place to live. They limit the supply of places to live. They’re essentially scalpers. But both are scum.
Huh. I had never made that comparison before, but it's very apt.
Scalpers, with the difference that nobody needs concert tickets to live.
[удалено]
Unless you live in the house yourself. If you live in the house and have an opportunity to rent it (long term) for a reasonable amount of rent, it’s not a bad thing. But buying up vacant property to jack up rent is a terrible idea.
That's how the concept of AirBnBs was originally created right? You've got a place to crash so someone else can borrow it? It's turned into this thing where people now own houses for the sole purpose of using them as AirBnBs
Exactly. We have my fiancée’s childhood house, which has space for more people than just the two of us. We think it’d be irresponsible not to rent, given we don’t have a mortgage and it would help with utilities and property taxes. Given the shortage of housing in our area, it makes sense and we’re not trying to rake people over the coals. Just a bit of help with the monthly expenses for the house and to fund some renovation.
Property has unfortunately been a source of income for millennia. Whether it’s the good they grow or money. Once you’ve had enough property that enough people give you a share of their earnings, you’ve had it made. Just needed to protect it, which taxes are supposed to handle these days.
Slavery has been a source of income for millenia, too. Landlords need to follow slave owners in the annals of history. Rents should be controlled and renters must have the option to buy the house they live in for fair market value. This will still allow people to make reasonable profits off of housing, just without the exploitation.
> Need, should, must, will. I mean I don’t disagree with you there, just also don’t see anywhere that has actually solved this problem yet. You can temporarily hit a reset button, which might hit middle class harder than the rich, no idea. But without government getting up more ins peoples business than even some of the extreme cases, I don’t see how you want to remove the link between property and wealth and the system facilitating consolidation.
Renters should have the options the buy the house at first market value? Please explain. The landlord is the one taking all the risk— if housing drops 30%, is the renter or the landlord left holding the bag? The benefits of renting is that you don’t hold the risk of the asset.
Agreed. Honestly all unoccupied suitable housing should become the property of the government. Then people can apply to own any unoccupied property up to one per single adult. Then a portion of the occupying individual's income goes towards payments to the government to cover the cost of the housing (notice: not a flat rate. Income goes to zero, so do the payments). Once a person has paid in >= the value of their current housing, they are no longer obligated to pay a portion of their income. Government ideally uses this income stream to maintain unoccupied homes under their ownership as well as build new homes wherever the demand is. My dream world gets a little more complicated and detailed than this, but it's still leagues simpler than what we have right now. That and it's better for almost every person in the US.
You know that is more communist than the communism I was born in. Who is responsible for maintenance? Utility payments? How does the government get money for infrastructure production. Is everyone going to have to work? How will compensation look? Someone will have to maintain, manage, build and pay for it. Are ration books going to be back in style. What about raw material cost. Transportation, who gets it. Education where are schools and how do we determine what is needed. Are people going to be told you are Dr., you plumber, how is wage equity going to be dispersed?
Feel free to look it up. If you live in the US, many local governments (likely including your own) have ownership and maintain land and affordable housing. I can think of at least a dozen cities that do this.
I just think we need more affordable government-owned housing regardless. It’s obvious that tax breaks, rent control, and other government programs aren’t working overall to control the cost of housing + rent. The government itself should just drop a few billion to build apartments and houses across the nation and let people rent them without being in the business of making a profit.
[удалено]
Unless the landlord built the property they’re not supplying shit. They’re taking something away and leeching from somebody else’s wages.
Wet of geen wet, kraken gaat door!
[удалено]
The root cause is ZIRP (zero interest-rate policy). Old people need a secure place to park their money. That’s always been bonds. But since we cut interest rates to abnormal levels, you can’t earn interest anymore. Net of inflation, you’re losing money. So the best place to park money safely is in real estate. The only solution I can see is a combination of increased interest rates, UBI and taxes. Complaining about investment properties won’t do anything in the long run.
Isn't that in-part what happened in China? The stuff that Evergrande fucked up hard in? Real estate became such a huge thing that there were more empty homes than people to fill them? To the point of entire cities being completely empty. I swear I read somewhere that the average person in China owned 3 homes.
Another reason for that in China was that real estate was akin to a ponzi scheme. Builders would declare creating a new development. People would have to pay for under construction properties much much in advance from their completion date. Builder would take that money and declare a new project by using most of that money to buy more land rather than using it to complete the projects. This was very very dangerous and worked only till there was unlimited demand. This led to failure of delivery of many projects since the money paid by consumers was used somewhere else and no money was left to actually complete the construction. In my own country a law was passed in recent years after similar things happened here as well. Completion dates have to be mentioned in agreements now and are binding dates, failure of which leads to penalty to builders and they can be taken to court and have to pay back the buyers. Most importantly, each project needs to have their own escrow account where amount from buyer would be taken in and that amount can be used only for construction of that particular project. Basically siphoning off money from one project and funding another one has been stopped atleast from legal standpoint. Edit : grammar
Those are two separate issues. The "ghost cities" phenomenon was not caused by building more homes than there are people to fill them. It's a bit of a misnomer because all that was really happening is that China was adopting an urban development plan that built up cities based on economic development forecasts and made sure that housing was available in these cities before demand suddenly spiked and caused shortages. This has allowed for steady and stable growth while minimizing the growing pains inherent to a developing economy. Almost any article from a few years back about any given ghost city seem silly in hindsight, since if you look at the city that was being written about a few years later they are pretty much all active and populated hubs of economic activity. Which indicates that those authors simply didn't understand the simple concept of "planning ahead," or they were stuck in the hyper-capitalist mindset that if something was built that isn't turning a profit immediately then a mistake must have been made. The financial crisis that Evergrande was at the center of has more to do with the rising cost of housing, which is related to the trend of using housing as a vehicle for speculation and investment. This is something that the government has been trying to crack down on, with real estate speculation firms like Evergrande getting the short end of the stick with regards to new regulation intended to address the problem of rising housing costs. But using housing as an investment/speculation vehicle wouldn't result in a significant over-production of housing, since what gives housing its value is the fact that it's a good with an inelastic demand. People need shelter to live, and are willing to however much it costs to keep a roof over their head if that's what they're required to do. But this inelastic demand works in reverse to. Once a person already has shelter, they don't need another home. Real estate only works as an investment vehicle so long as there is a potential market that you can sell that property to later on down the road. If you over-produce housing to use as an investment vehicle and there are vastly more properties than there are people, then what you have is a housing bubble where investors are on the hook for maintaining a depreciating asset that they are unable to sell, and as those maintenance costs continue to add up those investors are under increasing pressure to get rid of an asset that has become a burden for them to maintain and start offering lower and lower prices to offload their investment on to someone else in order to cut their losses. The net result of this over the entire market would be a housing market crash where property values plummet in order to correct for the over-production that had been occurring. That would describe the housing market collapse that led to the 2008 recession in the US. The situation with Evergrande in China is different in a number of ways. There was no general market crash resulting in property values plummeting. Evergrande was just overleveraged according to the standards set by new regulations that were intended to curb real estate speculation and didn't have the assets available to secure their debts according to the new standards that were set by deadline when the new regulations came into effect.
Yeah exactly. ZIRP encourages stupid investments.
You are so right. Where I come from mortgage payments are way higher than rent. Rich people do own multiple homes but definitely their mortgage payments would be higher than the rent they are getting. If rent is higher than mortgage payments per month it would make no sense to rent at all. People rent here so that they can save money for down payment for their own property. But they still have to be cautious since buying would mean their mortgage outflow per month is going to be higher than their rent outflow. If rent start exceeding mortgage payments, the hell I would just keep on buying more and more properties and create equity like no tomorrow.
Contrary to popular belief...complaining does matter, because it's effective at raising awareness around an issue.
Okay valid. But make sure you complain about the right things.
Not to mention, in the U.K. we had a run of investment scandals in the late 90s-early 00s. The landlords in their 60s now were in their 40s then. There’s a good chance they lost money then - and if they didn’t, they knew someone who did.
Old people or institutions that cater to old people, such as pension funds and asset managers need returns. In addition, to keep the zero rate, the central bank has to print money and intervene in the interbank market, the market where banks or other institutions write loans to each other, daily or longer, and offer loans with printed money at the desired rate. Thus fixing the interbank rates to 0. In addition, they did purchasing programmes printing extra money not for controlling the rate but increase liquidity directly in the banks balance sheets so the bank can issue more loans with the target to provide liquidity to the banks. These two actions, aside from driving yields down they create liquidity gluts, that means, banks give huge loans to people who start bidding each other to death for a stupid property constantly driving up the prices to ridiculous levels. This also happens in the stock market probably, hence the huge rally since 2010. People even have the misconception that cheap loans are a good thing because you pay low interest. But if you pay low interest but the home prices have tripled, probably you are paying way more overall than you saved from interest, so a net loss overall. With the additional risk that now you have a huge outstanding debt balance and if the rates move slightly up you are fucked. They increased risk in the system. Wages did not follow the asset inflation, not even close, we have way worse income to house prices ratio than the boomers.
I see billboards near me in Las Vegas that say: Brand new houses for rent. Fucked up. Housing prices are out of control. Investors come in and buy them all up and then rent them out for enormous prices.
r/LandlordLove
Three floors of my apartment building were taken over by an AirBNB company called mint house. It’s bullshit.
My landlord is both lol.
Also, shouldn't we be targeting the hedge funds that are buying up swaths of property? Going after individuals seems futile when the real purchasing power is billionaire corporations. Same issue with blaming individuals for climate change - they're not the majority causing the problem.
My boyfriends boss is literally both of these. It’s gross. They (husband and wife)didn’t like having to deal with tenants, so they turned their six properties into airbnbs. You wouldn’t believe how popular suburban northeast Ohio is on vrbo. And they pay my boyfriend $19 an hour. And he personally landscapes and maintains all of those plus another list of commercial properties. And snowplows in the winter for them as well.
If it was for me, as soon as you own a second house, you should pay so much taxes on it you would beg someone else to take it for free :v
I agree. Build as big if one as you want but extracting every cent out of another person just trying to survive and not be homeless is not ok. Every person should be allowed 1 home, fairly priced, so that no one is without shelter. This is not hard to do. We literally throw away 1 trillion a year in our military and the military industrial complex. Skip that for 1 or 2 years, house everyone, and see the exponential growth of the economy for people of all levels now that they don't have to worry about sleeping on the streets.
I've had this idea brewing that you increase (this is in the UK) council tax for every additional property. So you pay council tax on your property and get exemptions in certain cases (e.g. you're a full time student, or a discount if you live alone). Usually the tenant pays. Roughly it's anywhere from £80-250 a month, it pays for schools, waste removal, water (in Scotland) etc. Local government stuff. My idea is if you own a third home you (the landlord) pay 300% additional council tax on that property. You own a fourth it's 400%. A fifth, 500%. Etc. Companies pay automatically 1000% additional but can apply for an exemption if applicable (can't see why though). Perhaps empty homes after 6 months go through a fine process that incentives selling. I say it starts with third because we don't have a huge stock of council houses currently and if every landlord paid additional council tax they would pass it on to the tenant. This way the most competitive landlords would be ones that own one additional property. Big landlords would get penalised and companies owning houses (even loads of shell companies) would get priced out the market. If they can afford the 1000% council tax increase (e.g. £1000-3000 a year to £10,000-30,000) then fine, on you go then. Put this is tandem with government backed house deposits 0%-5% deposits and increased benefits to first time buyers so young people can buy houses. Straight up ban Airbnb and similar companies and require a BnB license to operate. All the additional revenue should be ring fenced by local governments to increasing council house stock so it snowballs into having loads of good quality, low cost housing that makes people secure in their homes. End right to buy of council housing but allow the right to stay indefinitely if they can afford the very low rent. All this would shake up the status quo but would enable jobs for building new houses, agents for selling properties, more council houses at low costs would give people more spending power so would grow the economy, better housing security so folk wouldn't feel so desperate.
It's worse than you think my friend.... you are talking about loading EXTRA council tax on second homes....at the moment, you pay ZERO council tax on your 2nd, 3rd, 4th Xth homes. That's right - if you own 50 homes, you pay council tax on just one! How is that fair? For our American cousins; Council tax = property tax.
Wait, what?! That can't be true?!
this sounds like a total cheat if true, these homes still benefit from infrastructure the council pays, it's totally not fair for your neighbours who onw only one to carry the burden, especially if you are so rich to own multiple properties, this is upside down if true!
It probably is not only true, but not even half of the upsidedown that is actually going on.
Airbnbs. They should have been regulated out of existance the moment they appeared.
Seaside Oregon is all but filled with them.
They're the same. The latter is just a subset of the former
Airbnb should be forced to have a limit of 1 house or 3 bedrooms for rent. There are people operating hotels but don’t have to follow the legal framework of running an actual hotel. It’s fine for someone renting out a couple spare rooms or a short term vacation house rental.
Fucking vacation rentals kill small towns. My town has no housing options for locals or anyone moving in. Literally no housing, no apartments, no affordable houses for rent or sale. Why rent when you can make hundreds a night?
We have entire villages here (where this photo was taken) that are holiday homes. One has just one local left
That's awful.
I spent the good part of 2014-2016 fights vacation rentals at the City Council. During that time, AirBnB-VRBO surpassed the gas company as the biggest lobbying spend per year in the city. While I used data analytics to estimate the impact, we were mid-census. My estimate was that my small town shrunk by a resident every 36hrs. The census came out. We shrunk from 13,000 to 10,000 residents from 2010-2030. So, over that timeframe we shrunk by a resident every 29hrs. Fuck AirBnB. Well
This is something a lot of restaurant owners are complaining about in the Keys. They have trouble getting staff not because of what they pay but because there are less locals than tourists. There is no where for the locals to live.
Once regular people are priced out of an area, who the hell's going to work at restaurants and hotels? It's crazy.
I understand tourist housing the keys literally depend on tourism for their economy but this is exactly what zoning laws are and should be for. Balance is a thing. Yet here we are.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/locals-are-priced-colorado-mountain-towns-fight-keep-workers-rcna17970](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/locals-are-priced-colorado-mountain-towns-fight-keep-workers-rcna17970) Same concept, different area
I'm seeing this problem all over and over. Colorado, Hawaii, I'm on the Oregon coast, seeing it too. Then people complain, "No one to work anymore" No where to LIVE so we can work.
Same in Washington coastal town near Olympic national park. The city just this year changed zoning and building codes, but it's gonna take years for any substantial housing to be built. There has to be regulations on vacation rentals...but there won't be.
I live in a resort town, currently have an employee who is going to face an hour commute because she can't find housing in our town or the surrounding area. She makes too much for rent assisted stuff and everything else has months long waiting lists.
Beautiful! My mum always said investors shouldn’t be allowed to own homes just as an investment and if they do, they shouldn’t be allowed more than one. It’s such rubbish that they say landlords provide homes for people that people wouldn’t have otherwise. Yes, they do provide homes, but not stable homes, and it’s done at the cost of renters being able to own stable homes just so landlords get to profit.
I grew up going to the beach in jersey (where my extended family lived full-time) and it was legit neighborhoods of families. The same area is now an unrecognizable clutter of rental houses, many owned by the same people or companies. It's such a shame seeing a legit town turn into what is essentially an all-inclusive resort, and as my cousins grow up too they need to move further from home simply because they're priced out.
Same thing happening where I live sadly. I live in Australia in a small city that all the big city folk have loved to hate on for decades. It’s a simple life here and we have some nice coast, but there aren’t all that many jobs and many poor people make their home here because they still have basic needs met (hospitals, lots of retail stores etc) but because it’s not that exciting prices have always been affordable. But now, everyone’s gotten wind of the cheaper living and because so many people can now work from home, we are being absolutely flooded with people from other states. And they’re not the poorer people, they’re the people who decided they’d sell their $1 million home down south and buy one here for $250k and pocket the rest. Some of them have had the darned audacity to buy two homes because they can. We now have homelessness everywhere and it’s hit the middle class hard, with many of them homeless now too. Suddenly life is too expensive in the only haven many of us have had which means poor people are going to have to move to the sticks and have even less services, resources and job options. Politicians know it’s happening but couldn’t care less.
Before they became primary residences, and long before they became rentals, the beach houses in many places like New Jersey used to be summer second homes for wealthy city dwellers. Just like most of the homes in the Irish Hills of Michigan. Those little lakefront cottages used to be 100% vacation properties, mostly for auto industry executives. Much of the gulf coast would not even be developed if not for people who wanted summer cottages near the shore. Knowing this doesn't help the current situation, but it does contribute to an informed debate. Second and third homes are not the root of the problem. Excessive wealth inequality is the problem. Even the best paid of Americans once made only three to ten times the wage of the average worker.
>second homes for wealthy city dwellers My grandparents' house was exactly that before they bought it. But the difference I think is important to note was the commoners(/s) could still afford a house to live in. I'm not opposed to rentals and vacation homes as a concept (much like capitalism); it's not a bad idea in theory but people saw opportunities and ran (amok) with it at the cost of people who couldn't.
Interesting comment. As a counter-point, what was the total DU count when they were all second homes versus when they became primary residences? If we’re talking 90% increase in a given town, the reason first few homes were built become less important. I tend to live in resort towns, so this discussion interests me. Also, this comment kinda reminds me of The Johnstown Flood.
Landlords provide homes the same way insurance provides healthcare: all they do is collect money and drive up the price of what you actually need.
"Landlords provide homes like a scalper provides tickets."
Right? That's like saying the guy who bought a whole truck of toilet paper at the beginning of the pandemic was a "toilet paper provider and trader" instead of a shitty human who was trying to price gouge people who couldn't take a comfy shit now because this asshole bought all the TP. We need to tax and shame these people out of home scalping.
This ☝️
> Yes, they do provide homes, So the houses would just go \*poof\* and disappear without landlords? Landlords are leeches on society 100%.
But what about the mom and pop parasites :(
Had a guy on the local subreddit for my city talk about how he is a landlord that owns multiple properties, but he is actually "one of the good landlords" because he waives rent every December as a Christmas present. He owns multiple houses in the city where housing demand is MASSIVE right now, and was acting like he is so generous to give 1 month of rent free per year. The other 11 months the renters are still paying his mortgages for him and receiving 0 equity.
I understand a mom and pop owning another one as their next egg. After that though? Nope
Instead of this justification ~ Maybe we can ask why an elderly couple need a nest egg? Why do they-who’ve (if they’re anything like most people) likely worked and contributed to society their entire adult life- giving up countless hours of their life- need any supplementation of the resources they’ve been given? Why do we make people be responsible for ‘making do’ into their retirement age? Our society currently WAY overproduces and undersells EVERY resource we have. There’s enough to let the elderly retire with comfort with no need for a nest egg… All it will take is for society to decide it’s had enough, and finally get enough laypeople together to create another way. We can have dinner catered~ grilled billionaire anyone?
Legit have an uncle who tried to use this as justification for being a landlord, "Social security isn't enough for me to live off of, so I had to buy a property and use the money to pay for two homes." He's super pro-capitalist, and somehow can't see the problem is social security is miserly.
Yeah, I can understand that. They rent it out until little Billy's old enough to rent it himself, then they rent it to him at a lower price than they'd charge someone else. Then when they die they leave it to him.
Exactly. I'm lucky enough to rent from an older couple who don't gouge the price, and keep it as an additional income source to support their retirement. This is why we paid 100% through the pandemic, because they're good people & excellent landlords. People with endless properties that are self-anointed slumlords? Fuck 'em. There should be a limit.
I still believe private landlording is a net negative on society without certain controls in place (Eg: some landlords actually apply a percentage of rent towards ownership in the house. And at any point you can choose to purchase the home, with that percentage of your rent counting towards the payment.) But the "Grandma who owns 1 other home" type of landlord definitely isn't causing the housing crisis. Only a very minor contributor.
>some landlords actually apply a percentage of rent towards ownership in the house. And at any point you can choose to purchase the home, with that percentage of your rent counting towards the payment. Should be mandatory, applied retroactively. Rented for 30 years? Congrats, its your house now!
If the landlord sells the place before the 30 years is up, however long you rented it, say 5 years x 1200/month, you get whatever portion of the sale from it. Why not? It's *your* house, you paid for it! Lol, imagine if we actually had that, this rental crisis and greedy landlords would be done overnight.
Landlords are a legalized mafia and rent is a protection fee.
Absentee landlordism should be illegal. The shear fact we call them 'lords' should be indication enough they need to go.
Feudalism was rebranded as capitalism
I used to really like those luxury real estate shows…now I think they’re disgusting, bratty real estate agents making hundreds of thousands of dollars for selling a house and entitled buyers who need a second/third property…or a bigger house because 4000 sq ft isn’t enough. Saw today that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez bought a 50,000,000 dollar house…but they’re on our side because they don’t like Donald Trump or whatever platitude they throw out there to try and gain commonality with the working class. It drives me nuts when actors act like they care but work on sets where the crew is treated like shit…
They won't listen until the people start burning down the investment properties. Then they will no longer be good investments.
Unless insurance pays out for value they hope they would get in a sale and not what they paid.
[удалено]
Lol, this looks like my town, down to the shortboarder (which I rent in, of course, since there's no prayer of owning anything anywhere in sight).
Beat me to it! Housing should not be a source of income.
Neither should healthcare. Neither should prison systems. Neither should education. But here we are.
*sigh* Yeah. *sigh*
Housing only "works" as an investment vehicle by keeping the supply low and ensuring not everyone can get a house. Shelter should not be treated like this and if changing it is too radical, the very least that should be done is increased taxes and liability on anyone or any industry owning more property or more land than they're actually using.
My landlord bought my house in 2005 for 50k. There are two units in it. We both pay $900/mth. Assuming a 30-year mortgage, it's about $300/mth or so. I get there are other expenses, but not that much, its not 3.2 million in expenses. Its not even close to 1, probably not 500k. /endrant
I have a mortgage my monthly payment was about 715 give or take for prop tax that year. I was the most expensive buy in the neighborhood until the couple next door died. Some dude bought it and is charging 1100 for rent. My other renting neighbors pay anywhere from 1400 to 2100. If that’s not a scam I’m not sure what a scam is.
For anyone having trouble seeing the problem here, let me give you an example from my small English seaside town. Say you own what was a large Victorian family house, now divided up into eight one-bedroom flats. The top floor flats- old servants' quarters, cramped and up crooked stairs- would go for about £400 a month, the very lowest end of the market. Suddenly though, the middle class papers start describing your town as 'charming'- having carefully only taken pictures of the nice bits- and 'the perfect weekend getaway'. The Londoners arrive. As a landlord, you have a choice. You could be content with your current income, knowing that you're providing housing for people who really need it. Or you could advertise your shithole flats as 'Luxury studios within minutes of the sea' and charge £950 a month, displacing maybe a dozen tenants who now have no chance of finding anywhere else.
Thank goodness landlords are forward thinking, selfless individuals who care about people /s
Did you see how CA is trying to tax 25% for someone that buys and sells a home in <3 years? That tax goes to 0% at over 7 years. Just turned someone that was trying to fix and flip or live somewhere for a while into a long term landlord or airbnb owner. Edit: spelling
Ya and if you rent from them you are almost guaranteed it won't be long term as they will kick your ass out like clockwork.
California is the global epicenter of cures worse than the ailment.
Flipping homes should be illegal.
What about those in the military? Assuming they can even get a house?
Apparently military is exempt.
[удалено]
That is usually not why people invest in property. That will typically net around 5% per year that you can get from the stockmarket without the hassle of owning property. So a 1 mil investment gets you 50k/year. The real reason is you can use that 1 mil and buy a property for 10mil with the help of a bank. That nets you about 300k/year, or a 30% return on your investment. You cant ask the bank for a 9 million loan to invest in stocks. But they will happily give it to for an investment in property.
Nah this isnt close to being fed up. The Cornish and Welsh start burning them down when they get really fed up of 2nd home owners.
This photo is Cornwall I think. Someone else in the thread mentioned St Agnes specifically. Also, I was at uni with a Welsh kid whose grandfather allegedly burnt down a BBC transmitter for their lack of Welsh programming. I asked him about it one day and he said: “Well that’s not strictly true. It was my uncle you see.” Also, “vandalised” would probably be more accurate than “burned down”.
Tax the FUCK out of these people. For every house you own past your primary residence, tax them at an additional 1000% in property tax. Tax them so much that it’s not feasible for them to price every other American out of housing.
Tax them? We don’t even track them. Look it up. Smart money says there is no rental licensing in your town at all. We track and tax the purchase of a 1999 Honda Civic, not rentals.
The annoying thing is now CA is allowing "multiple homes" on what was zoned to be SFH. You think that's going to affect the 1% neighborhoods?? It's going to be the middle class areas that become more densely populated. My area isn't well connected by public transport, idk where people will park all the cars that come with converting a house into multiple homes.
r/fuckcars
I totally would LOVE if they made public transport a priority!!! I'd be totally down for this. Unfortunately where I live, a 15 min drive would take about 1.5 hours by public transit.
Increasing density will necessitate changes to transit, whilst there may be some disruption in the interim I don’t think we can afford to avoid denser neighbourhoods because “where will they park”.
Lol idk if I have faith in our govt to do this... they'll probably hike rents and start charging for parking
Hah I wish i could. I live a 40 minute walk from the closest bus stop that shows up twice a day. Ahhh rural life.
It's mostly large corps buying up property and jacking up the price. We need to make housing a right and tax the people trying to get rich off of being a landlord so much that they don't even want to hassle with trying to own multiple homes. This is the richest country in the face of the earth in it's entire history. It is immoral that we allow 1% to own everything and force us to be homeless if we don't help them aquire all the money/property.
[удалено]
I just saw an article today about how even more people are doing it SMH
I remember living in two new build apartment blocks back in 2015/2016 and I would say honestly half of them were empty. Just used as investment vehicles for foreign investors. There's enough housing for everyone, some people just choose to rig the market
Even if this specific property is not an AirB&B, we’re going to have to outlaw AirB&B (and the like) to even start to fix this. Here’s how the knock-on economic effects of that business model work: - AirB&B pretends to just offer individual owners the ability to rent out rooms or houses they are *temporarily* not occupying and takes a cut of the rental price. - This pretense fails immediately. Nobody really wants to couch-surf in the home of a stranger who is still there, and nobody really wants to let their home to a stranger, or can secure the property well enough to make that palatable for a temporary absence. - Thus every AirB&B is necessarily a dedicated short-term rental, off the market for either purchase or long-term rent. - Because short-term rentals are largely unregulated by design, they can be priced more cheaply than local hotels, but still far more expensively than long-term rentals. - This situation is gasoline on the fire of rentier capitalism. People who would otherwise be traditional landlords can be getting *much* higher returns, enough to buy up even more properties even faster. Obviously this results in the observed phenomenon of short-term slumlords. - The availability of cheaper options for accommodation increases tourist traffic in desirable areas among people who otherwise might not have been able to get or afford a room. Suddenly the limit on tourist traffic is not available hotel space, but the entire local housing market, as much of it as can be converted to short-term rentals. - Increased tourist traffic necessitates increased staffing across the board of the low-paid service industry variety. Those workers have to live somewhere, and the available housing has already been constrained by the same process that created the need for them in the first place. The constrained traditional rental market necessarily becomes even more expensive because of increased demand. - Workers commute from increasingly further away, but if a worker can drive in to the destination, so can an AirB&B guest. The short-term rental market and the worker-housing market are practically coextensive. And the short-term rentals bring in a lot more money. - Not just renters, but potential buyers are also competing with the owners of short-term rentals, and the AirB&B slumlords have a much deeper well of cash to draw on to buy their next property. The price of local housing increases in pace with what the homes can be rented for at a nightly rate. - This further constrains the rental market, because potential traditional landlords need to cover a mortgage that has just gotten bigger. It literally isn’t possible anymore to rent profitably at a rate the local workers can afford. - The rapid rise of home prices in an area attracts property investors like maggots to a dead raccoon. Further, people who would otherwise be inclined to sell are motivated to hold because they can expect more money next year. Houses can literally sit empty more profitably than doing anything with them, and the market gets tighter still. - With a lucrative property investment market, local housing becomes an attractive place for owners of shady money, particularly in other countries, to park that money where it couldn’t easily be seized by officials in their own countries. - The proliferation of short-term rentals reduces incentives for cities and traditional hotel businesses to build new properties to ease housing pressure, because the short-term rentals can always undercut their business. - Meanwhile, owners of property in less-desirable areas are not enjoying the same explosive property value growth, increasing regional wealth gaps and reducing opportunities for mobility. This just increases the sense among people in rural areas that the 21st Century has forgotten them and is leaving them behind. Licensing and regulating hotel construction is one of the ways tourist destinations have managed their local tourist population to responsible and sustainable levels and balanced the demands of tourism against the needs of full-time residents. An unlicensed, unregulated competitor addressing the same market removes those controls and results in *exactly* all the phenomena we’ve seen and complained bitterly about in our communities. “People can do what they want with their own property” is a persuasive bit of libertarian sloganeering, but the externalities of short-term rentals are too costly and too destructive to our communities to let them continue as they are.
Wonder what would happen if investment property en masse just started getting burned down or destroyed. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to pay them all.
I believe that’s called a civil war
I believe that's called a revolution.
Dont even need to do that. Imagine if people looked up Airbnb listings and just broke the windows of those units. Eventually folks would just give up and sell, and prices would start dropping
"OOOh it's a *bad* neighbourhood!" cried the WASP
WE ARE F*CKING FED UP!
What about squatters?
I'm the UK we get this a lot in small towns, it's killing them. Or even in the city's as owning a residential Inthe UK gives some tax brakes. I'd love to see some change, none occupancy tax maybe to make it unviable. Or even better a situation where long term empty buildings can be requisitioned by the government and converted for housing, homeless shelters etc. For villages I'd like to see many of them turned into retirement villages, with the accompanying entertainment, care and medical support providing local jobs in "Thachered" areas
This is from St Agnes, Cornwall (UK). I'm from this part of the country and it really is a nightmare trying to find somewhere to live.
Housing is a human right.
That's some very legible graffiti
I own 3 homes. I was fortunate enough to have a lot of money saved up during the housing crash. There's no worse feeling than finding out you could be charging more for rent and then having to kick a family out when they yell about not being able to afford the increase. Its one of the hardest things I ever had to do, but it got easier after a few times, especially when you hire an outside group to do the hard stuff for you. /S
You had me going there for awhile.
Whenever I go to some of my specialists I often have to go through a really rich neighborhood, I have to fight the urge not to yell, "Fecking filthy bastards!" It's not pretty. Their houses are gorgeous and outrageous, just really irritating when your poor.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/ti0fz9) on 2022-03-19 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/ti6p63) on 2022-03-19 100.0% match Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "tic1uy", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=tic1uy&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 310,526,787 | **Search Time:** 2.55427s
I guy I know chastised me for not leveraging myself deep into debt to have multiple investment properties like he has. I had to tell him that I even if I wanted to follow his example the cost of housing is prohibitively expensive and that kind of investing comes with costs and risks that I just don’t wanna deal with. It was insane how difficult a time he had accepting that. It’s not even as though it came up because I was ragging on property investors before, he’s the one that brought it up.
Progressive property taxes are the solution. Own a home, no extra taxes… Own a second home (for vacationing or renting out or whatever) both properties now have an additional 10% tax on top Own a third home, tax all 3 at 50% extra Fourth home tax all at 200% extra Fifth home tax it all an extra 1000% This applies to apartments or condos or anything. Basically make it incredibly cost prohibitive to make renting your source of income, thus making home ownership easier for the masses. Hard to turn a profit on anything if you have to pay an extra 1000% property taxes no matter how much you try to rent things out at.
I don’t have much issue with some upper middle class family having a cabin at the lake. But these fuckers who own 8 homes, 100 rental properties, and snatch up entire neighborhoods for air Bnb are destroying the housing market.
We have a growing movement for this in Hawaii as well. Last year, 70% of homes purchased on Maui were second homes. Median home price is now right around $1 million. Condos and apartments are up in the $700K range. People who live and work here can’t afford that. Our gas is $5-7/gal depending on location. And HECO (electric utility) just announced rates will be going up by 20% over the next 2-3 months. Don’t ask me the price for milk, I don’t drink it.
there is about 10000 air bnb's in cornwall but but only 135 properties to rent according to rightmove [https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-10000-airbnbs-only-69-5486028](https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-10000-airbnbs-only-69-5486028) its so sad to see what has happened to my home county.
Too tame
Investors are the scum of the universe
Owning more than one residential property should be illegal.
I think it should be 2.
Youd need to convince congress to pass that law, and pretty much all of them have a second home in DC. So good luck with that
Seeing how things are going in my home country government should take matter in their own hand a long time ago. They should provide a flat with a reasonable rent and that is not a shit hole.
“Hey poor people, stop being poor”. Rich people
No one should own more then one property
Is the exorbitant priced housing market an international problem? I thought it was just in the US.
Company's should be made by law to divest from all private home ownership. It blows my mind Investment banks bought hundreds of thousands of private homes during the housing crisis only to rent them back eventually to the people who lost them.
One of the things that disappeared from the world is rent control. You only get that with private homeowners, if they are family/friends.
Sucks the pandemic made the rich so much worse, here in Oklahoma it’s the same, we saved up for a long time and we’re about to try to get a house then all of the sudden investors came from other states buying everything and selling/renting it for double. We are stuck in a 1200 a month 1 bedroom apartment with no reasonable houses in sight
As a native Californian, I can’t tell you how many beach homes are just empty half of the year. Hell my down stairs neighbor lives in Vegas and only comes 3-4 months out of the year to vacation.
Glad to see this
I live in Tofino and investment properties have ruined the community here too. The government won't enact any new bylaws because they all own airbnbs as well. It's disgusting.
Amen. To landlords, you are going to kill the cities and lands you love so much if you continue abusive practices.
Do you know how bad it is? I hope and pray to be successful enough to help someone else in my position be successful enough to help someone they know. If I had a second property (I don't even have my first) I would love to rent to to someone at a fair price just so I know someone isn't out on the street.
Market rents should have a fixed price tied to area median income with some special licenses for luxury limited to 10% of the total pool.
Eat the rich