They're competing with VCs trying to build developments and companies trying to turn a profit. Gone are the days of the "Fixer Upper" that Tim Taylor would buy, drop a reasonable amount in repairs, preform the repairs themselves, and then turn a modest profit.
Everyone who buys a house today wants the value to go up. Nobody who can afford a house needs one. They are not commodities that you utilize and repair. They are now investments, vehicles to grow your money.
That's great for all the snobbish out of touch retirees. But the middle class needs somewhere to hang their hat so they can rest up and make it to work tomorrow.
You want to increase the supply. I want to tank the demand. Your method won't work because if regular people could afford to compete, they would be already. The players in the market manipulated the prices once to give themselves an advantage. You're just giving them an opportunity to do it again. Only now they have the market cap to do it right.
The price will come down when the demand shifts from mcmansions to regular, affordable housing. It will be funny to see all those $1m+houses sit on the market as the correction unfolds. Nobody asked for them in most places. They were added by developers seeking to gentrify small towns like Rowley MA.
And taxes will come down too because towns will have no choice but to tax property owners more reasonably.
What data do you have to support this?
> As of 2022, investment companies own about one-fourth of all single-family homes in the US, accounting for 22% of American homes sold, down from 80% in 2020-2021
Naturally, the homes bought are all in the most densely populated areas with a relatively new construction (gentrified neighborhoods). I think it's gonna be a couple years before prices drop.
Large institutions own 5%. Most of these "investors" are house flippers and small landlords trying to "make it big in real estate". It's not the 1% strangling the working class, it's the 10%. Any solution that doesn't hit them the hardest won't be a solution. Infact, we want more density, we need more gentrification, so I don't want to discourage large institutions from investing in a new apartment. But at the very least, if you claim to care about housing prices, don't prevent the government from building more housing.
Individual home owners and business interests have a vested interest in maintaining a very tight grip on the status quo with regard to zoning, which is the primary tool for driving housing reform.
They will continue to do everything in their power to prevent the construction of affordable housing, because it will destroy their current real estate investments.
The non-landed folks have zero leverage within the political system.
Unfortunately those sorts of structures are banned by most municipalities.
It does not have to be this way.
So the other fundamental problem is that it is impossible to save money because it is constantly being debased.
I think if we allowed house densities to increase and changed zoning laws to allow houses to be built. The cost of housing would fall significantly especially if VC saw a wave a new house they would be prompted to sell before the wave (at a lower prices) or risk significant loses.
Whether you could actually build enough houses to fix the supply inversion is another question. However, without changing zoning laws I don't see how you'd even be able to try catch supply at this point because the places where houses need to be sold prevent multi family units which are much more efficient at soaking up demand per unit than single family houses
What you're trying to say is that it would be less profitable and that may be true but as long as it tracks with inflation it would be worth it as an investment tool.
good luck with that.
Can you point it out for me?
This isn't all land. It's just desirable land - in cities basically. The urban to rural migration has been going on for many decades now and doesn't seem to show any signs of slowing down.