#46 President Joe Biden

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I think you are being purposefully obtuse.  Private Equity and VC firms are buying up single family homes and rental properties in neighborhoods previously affordable to the average american (also happening globally in countries around the world) to artificially drive up costs with the goal of seemingly keeping people in a cycle of never being able to buy as they are caught up with ever increasing rents and rising costs of housing. So now in addition to competing with each other, would be homeowners are also competing with the industry forces of global capitalism and wealth extraction. See blackrock, I'm sure you have never heard of them before today. 

The Idea that anyone could be in favor of a person or entity buying up property to drive up prices thus barring private ownership on a small level in the name of ever increasing rents is immoral.  And before you start your next argument, yes I see a person that owns a few properties in which they charge other people rent differently than I do transnational corporations and investment firms, ffs a line has to be drawn somewhere.  

some examples

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/02/business/family-homes-wall-street/index.html

https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/big-investment-companies-are-buying-houses-at-high-prices-and-renting-them-out-squeezing-would-be-home-owners

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/single-family-landlords-wall-street/582394/

But sure what we are talking about is too opaque to see through clearly.

Private equity is a much more specific term than "corporations" which was previously stated.  So let's get that straight to start.  And if you think Blackrocks raison d'etre for this strategy is to price rents so high that a person can never buy a home, well I disagree strenuously with that statement.  Blackrock exists to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  They are not conducting some long game to change the societal makeup of the United States, and make everyone renters beholden to them.  

So I don't understand the law you are proposing.  You are saying that no one that is back by private equity should be able to buy rental property.  Yeah, good luck with your fantasy.  

Where I live, owner occupied properties receive a 50% property tax exemption for the property they occupy, up to a 4 unit property. 5 units and above are considered commercial properties and don’t receive the tax break even if they live in one of the units. I know married couples who each bought a three family but live in one unit and both claim owner occupied. It would suck for them if the city found out.

You also have AirB&B’ers buying properties and getting a months rent in the equivalent of two 3 day weekends. Anything more is gravy for them and this is true with the advent of traveling nurses, skilled trades people like steel erectors who relocate for a construction job and college kids who want to have a party off campus. So housing in college towns or areas seeing major new building construction feel the strain.

Its not one thing making the impact but a combination, ABB, institutional investors and a lack of new housing stock. And investors, whether individual or institutional, absolutely will hold a property off market to drive cost, either for higher rent or resale, and they do buy multiple houses in neighborhoods.

I’d like to see more planned communities with smart green technology built in, micro grid, solar, heat pumps, car charging stations, bike lanes, designed to be car free, with a mix of commercial, condo, offices and single family homes, with a percentage held for affordable housing and a lesser percentage for market rate. Battery City in NYC was built that way and there are developments in Maryland as such, although too dismeyesque for my liking. People are done spending their life in a car or train to go to work and the current model is not sustainable. How much is enough?

I generally agree with you, but at the same time institutional investors target homes that need renovation.  They are competing with other investors, whether they be small individuals or other institutions. But you're right, it's a bunch of things that have caused the shortage.  

To me the bigger problem is these developments in the suburbs that are built to be rentals not owner occupied.

I read an article a while back and it was something like 40 percent of new builds in Texas. Whatever the number was I was shocked. 

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate.  Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership. 

I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate.  Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership. 

I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit

Even on your house?

sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market.  Or even move up in your current city.  You need all the profit you can get. 

Cropduster-80 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate.  Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership. 

I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit

Even on your house?

sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market.  Or even move up in your current city.  You need all the profit you can get. 

A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana.  Their house is their 401k

Yes  a cap on everyone would be fine by me I’m fine with profiting, but against profiteering.  If people are having to sell their home and property in order to retire that speaks to a much bigger problem in our society.

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate.  Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership. 

I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit

Even on your house?

sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market.  Or even move up in your current city.  You need all the profit you can get. 

A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana.  Their house is their 401k

If we're being serious here, you could legislate that LLCs, s corps, corps, etc. cannot profit.  This would allow you to do so on your personal home. Although not sure what all the renters are going to do with no place to live. 

True. 

 But a lot of people form a llc to buy their home.  Helps shield your assets from lawsuits and stuff I think.  Either that or have a giant umbrella policy.  I know getting sued for something stupid is a valid concern 

I though Greg Abbott fixed that

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate.  Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership. 

"Might the fact that corporate investors snapped up 15 percent of U.S. homes for sale in the first quarter of this year have something to do with it? The Wall Street Journal reported in April that an investment firm won a bidding war to purchase an entire neighborhood worth of single-family homes in Conroe, Texas—part of a cycle of stories drumming up panic over Wall Street’s increasing stake in residential real estate. "  

"Let’s focus on Invitation Homes, a $21 billion publicly traded company that was spun off from Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity company, in 2017. Invitation Homes operates in 16 cities, with the biggest concentration in Atlanta, where it owns 12,556 houses. (Though that’s not much compared with the 80,000 homes sold in Atlanta each year, Invitation Homes bought 90 percent of the homes for sale in some ZIP codes in Atlanta in the early 2010s.) While normal people typically pay a mortgage interest rate between 2 percent and 4 percent these days, Invitation Homes can borrow money for far less: It’s getting billion-dollar loans at interest rates around 1.4 percent. In practice, this means that Invitation Homes can afford to tack on an extra $5,000 to $20,000 to the purchase price of every home, while getting the house at the same actual cost as a typical homeowner. While Invitation Homes uses a mixture of debt and cash from renters to buy houses, its offers are almost always all cash, which is a big leg up in a competitive market."  https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html

That 1% you speak of I am assuming is all residential property ownership in the US?  I would like to see how that factors in if you look at that 1% of property in relation to available properties on the market and what percentage of available properties are being bought up.  While a number like 1% seems miniscule by itself it could paint a different picture when taken in a different context.  15% of available homes being bought up by corporate investors in a quarter is a much different thing than, oh corporate investors only own .5 to 1% of all residential property in the US total.

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I think you are being purposefully obtuse.  Private Equity and VC firms are buying up single family homes and rental properties in neighborhoods previously affordable to the average american (also happening globally in countries around the world) to artificially drive up costs with the goal of seemingly keeping people in a cycle of never being able to buy as they are caught up with ever increasing rents and rising costs of housing. So now in addition to competing with each other, would be homeowners are also competing with the industry forces of global capitalism and wealth extraction. See blackrock, I'm sure you have never heard of them before today. 

The Idea that anyone could be in favor of a person or entity buying up property to drive up prices thus barring private ownership on a small level in the name of ever increasing rents is immoral.  And before you start your next argument, yes I see a person that owns a few properties in which they charge other people rent differently than I do transnational corporations and investment firms, ffs a line has to be drawn somewhere.  

some examples

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/02/business/family-homes-wall-street/index.html

https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/big-investment-companies-are-buying-houses-at-high-prices-and-renting-them-out-squeezing-would-be-home-owners

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/single-family-landlords-wall-street/582394/

But sure what we are talking about is too opaque to see through clearly.

mrussel1 said:
Private equity is a much more specific term than "corporations" which was previously stated.  So let's get that straight to start.  And if you think Blackrocks raison d'etre for this strategy is to price rents so high that a person can never buy a home, well I disagree strenuously with that statement.  Blackrock exists to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  They are not conducting some long game to change the societal makeup of the United States, and make everyone renters beholden to them.  

So I don't understand the law you are proposing.  You are saying that no one that is back by private equity should be able to buy rental property.  Yeah, good luck with your fantasy.  

I am not saying anyone sat down in a room to come up with such a plan.  Since the goal is to maximize profits for shareholders, if a side effect of the current trend is increasing rents and an endless debt cycle, a corporation or any other perfectly legal business venture has no reason to pump the brakes when it comes to the betterment and livelihood of non investors.  Though corporations and private equity partners may be staffed with regular people just like me and you the bottom line doesn't care.  When it comes to profits we have seen over and over in this country and around the world that the side effects of capital accumulation and how it affects communities, the environment etc. have little to no influence unless silly little laws are enacted.

To the second bolded, no corporation or private equity firm big time real estate mogul etc. should be able to buy a residential property with the specific goal of converting it to a rental property and thus shrinking the amount of available homes to actual families and homebuyers looking for an actual place to call their home, regardless of how perfectly legal it may be to do otherwise.

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Zod said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

What is the practice that should be outlawed?  If I bought an apartment building, I'd form a corporation too.  No way would I own it personally and I wouldn't do an LLC either.  Probably too big for that.  I'm not clear on what you guys are against here.  

I don't think it's the apartment building that's a problem.   Apartment buildings are usually build to rent on purpose.  Stuff built to rent on purpose isn't really the heart of the problem.

What's going on is many big corporations are buying up all the other residential stuff.  Houses, townhouses, condo's.  All the stuff which would of used to be owned and lived in by individuals.

Corporations can function indefinitely, so once it gets absorbed, the odds of going back on the market are probably slim.  So the longer it happens more and more residential stuff will go from being owned by people to being owned and rented out by corporations.  This creates increased competition amongst what's left available to buy, and also put's rental stock in the hands of entities that are designed to maximize revenues.

I think the US is much further ahead with this than Canada.   The US has companies buying things like complete subdivisions of houses and stuff.   One would hope in Canada maybe we address this before it becomes a larger problem.

He knows this already

You're right, I know exactly how Blackrock works, probably more than you can imagine.  My path has crossed with this very specific business unit of theirs.  But I would invite you all to look to see how many units exist where Blackrock (NOT BLACKSTONE) has an interest.  I think you'll be surprised how miniscule it is.  This is not the reason we have housing shortages and high rents.  It's because manufacturing of homes is at the lowest mark in decades.  But go ahead, rail away at your perceived enemy and create some silly legislation.  

Got it, legislation that protects the interests of the poor and working class from the ever expanding power and control of global capital is silly, because it would limit the ability of equity management firms to maximize profits for its equity holders in a specific term for a specific fund.  Get back to me when all of these interests start putting their assets back on the market and stop holding on to them to maximize rents.  

Regardless of how minuscule you perceive the share to be, the fact that working people are having to compete against Wall Street in order to buy a house would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But it's okay to for potential buyers to compete against all the other interests that invest in real estate.  Why not make it illegal to profit off real estate? That would make more logical sense than to target only PE who represent less than 1/2 of 1% of residential property ownership. 

I would not be opposed to a cap on real estate profit

Even on your house?

sucks If you want to sell to move to a more expensive market.  Or even move up in your current city.  You need all the profit you can get. 

A lot of people cash out in California and retire in Montana.  Their house is their 401k

If we're being serious here, you could legislate that LLCs, s corps, corps, etc. cannot profit.  This would allow you to do so on your personal home. Although not sure what all the renters are going to do with no place to live. 

True. 

 But a lot of people form a llc to buy their home.  Helps shield your assets from lawsuits and stuff I think.  Either that or have a giant umbrella policy.  I know getting sued for something stupid is a valid concern 

i notice it when we look up property records to protest tax increases.  You see a lot of llc’s and the people are just normal people 

I'm sure there is some sort of tax break or revenue protection involved.  A former employer of mine sold his successful welding business to a huge corp for somewhere north of 15 mil.  Within a year he created an llc real estate company bought three properties a handful of high dollar vehicles and a boat, all registered to the newly formed llc.  I wasn't told the ins and outs but he did tell me that everything can be written off on taxes because of the llc.

Gas prices dropped below $4.00 and July saw a 0% increase in inflation over June. What? No hate for Brandon? Get lost Brandon, you senile old man! We want strength, rationality and stability back in the WH!

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gas prices dropped below $4.00 and July saw a 0% increase in inflation over June. What? No hate for Brandon? Get lost Brandon, you senile old man! We want strength, rationality and stability back in the WH!

You talk a lot of different things in that and they shouldn’t be group together.

Biden is an old man…and while not senile, the job is taking it’s obvious toll.

Gas is still high (not sure how if you don’t blame president for gas you take credit for improvement)

It’ll be interesting to see what comes from what was passed. And I’m forever thankful the original Biden bill was not passed. 

Poking fun at the hypocrisy is all and Brandon’s accomplishments go far beyond the one bill you refer. All, remember, without one iota of repub support and only after they fully underestimated the backlash. He’s running circles around POOTWH’s party of NO accomplishments, except a tax break that didn’t pay for itself. The job ages everyone who fills it, regardless of their age upon occupying the oval.

what’s wrong with grouping all the hypocritical criticisms in one post?

Ageism is great. Let’s elect someone younger who pushes a new law Rock Stars must retire at 50.