Hacker News Reader

Comment by marincounty | Hacker News Reader

I don't think anyone will respond out of fear of being labeled a -------? I will only comment on buying realestate in the U.S.? I believe realestate should only be bought by U.S. citizens. Right now all a foreigner needs is a individual tax number, and money. We have no real idea how that foreign money was obtained?

Or, who cares?

http://www.zillow.com/intl/en/foreign-buyers-guide/

View on HN

Sure. Although I do think if people don't respond out of fear of being labeled, then it's a shame because it is possible to discuss this topic without being portrayed as a xenophobe/racist. A lot are just observations I've heard and seen, especially when I was a chaperone for children from some of China's elite a few years ago.

Interesting on limiting real estate to only citizens. Although I doubt homeowner(s) who are selling care about where the money comes from, especially if it's upfront and comes in cash. And if you look at some of the prices for these townhouses/homes in South Bay suburbs, I imagine it'd be hard to say no.

On the contrary, I think that any foreigner being able to buy real estate in the US is a big plus for the country. Think about it, real estate is one of the few things that can never be exported. When foreigners buy in the US, they're divesting money from other possible expenditures in their home country to be invested for a long time in America. This in turn improves the value of real estate, generates jobs on construction, agents, plus local fees, and so many other things that will end up in American pockets. If anything else I would make it easier to sell real estate to internationals.

If outside buying of real-estate isn't controlled, then you can get into the situation where locals and citizens cannot afford to buy property because its driven up by outside investors, especially ones who buy using large sums of cash.

It is true that it creates jobs and and local fees but ultimately the local populace should be able to afford houses. This situation becomes worse in areas where there is no new housing being built.

"A foreigner". Why do you care where they were born? If where someone was born is so important to you, why not extend it down to the state level and only let people buy in the state in which they are issued papers from?

This is indeed thinly veiled nationalism/racism.

In a properly functioning society, you should have no real idea how the domestic money was obtained, either. It's none of your business as a seller.

Is nationalism a bad thing? (Required reading is much appreciated.)

While citizenship is conferred primarily based on where one was born (a fact that has little or nothing to do with a person's capabilities, ideas, loyalties, or qualifications) it is in almost all cases serving as a thin veil over institutionalized racism.

I don't think a persons capabilities, ideas, loyalties or qualifications are innate to ones birth either. I don't understand how it serves to institutionalize racism, could you please explain?

“Nationalism does nothing but teach you to hate people you never met, and to take pride in accomplishments you had no part in.” - Doug Stanhope

I think the more accurate assertion should be residents only. Or no long term unoccupied properties so people rent them out. Or you get my home town of Vancouver[0] or you get London[1], which is even more complicated. If your not a resident, then you can deal with just renting. In asian countries where they limit ownership to only citizens or residents, and your not china, you don't see such huge property value booms, and the average citizen there can afford a property.

I think the only reason why the bay area has become another Vancouver yet is because it has the huge tech industry surge to help support the prices somewhat. Also wide anti-NIMBY regulations could help a lot too.

The consequences of autocratic regimes and their capital flight is being felt around the world [2][3].

[0] http://saeidfard.com/post/113616107456/the-decline-of-vancou... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/28/london-the-ci... [2] http://business.asiaone.com/news/chinese-become-biggest-fore... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign...

Residents only is also unfair. What if I wanted to own a place in SF?

Lots of people only live in a place part of the year.

By that behavior you constrain supply for the people who live there full time and destroy businesses that need a full time populace to live there.

Look at this vancouver example when people want to live there only part time because it has become hip with the world's wealthy and retired: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-est...

New york also suffers this to some extent with empty highrises owned by who know what.

In normal places where they aren't supply shocked I don't think it matters, but if your NIMBY enough a place where the price of a property doubles in 2-4 years, it can get pretty nuts.

And I'm not saying you cannot rent a place, just not own one unless your a full time resident XOR you have a high tax on long term unoccupied properties that encourages property owners to rent out their spaces. I would actually just prefer a long term unoccupied property tax. The key is unused empty properties, not who owns it. Increase supply, and remove perverse incentives to not just sit on supply.

Unfortunately we cannot just pick on SF's landlord unfriendly laws here, because the supply shock applies to the entire bay area. Removing those laws to encourage landlords to rent out their empty properties would be an improvement.

While it may not make sense, there are quite a few counties where there are restrictions to buying land and real estate.

Not sure about the reasoning, some are well off countries, others middling to low achieving countries. Still, it's not out of the ordinary to have restrictions.[1]

Greece, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, China and others.

I don't think it's racism. I do think it has to do with nationalism. Perhaps misguided. In some cases it's ideological (China, Vietnam, for example.)

[1]http://internationalliving.com/global-property-ownershi/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com