alt Hacker NewsI'd be fine with a policy of "you can rent housing you build" for American corporations.
If a corporation thinks there is demand in some city, goes and build housing for that demand and then rents that housing, that is good for the world.
Would be a better policy than letting corporations use their access to capital markets to outcompete individuals trying to buy a house.
Replies
You can rent a home after you’ve personally owned it and lived in it for 10 years? That would cap any individual to 3-4 rentals in a lifetime
Need to think about this some... Would this end up being another way for MegaCorp to extract wealth from the rest of us (similar to student loans)? All new housing ends up rentals, and a generation+ of Americans are unable to use homes for storing/building wealth?
We know using housing as an investment, at an individual level, is problematic (NIMBYism and failure to infill/redevelop/etc). Not sure how incentivizing MegaCorp to do the same on a massive scale fixes anything?
Simply greatly reducing loans available to small investors for non-built rental properties would do that.
The key is increasing supply, and we should directly target that issue (or decrease demand, but people don't like that side).
Then it would be lucrative to buy up land and sit on it to hold a monopoly on the competition. Can’t build or rent what you can’t buy.
Maybe if it doesn't include property with existing homes that you tear down.
> I'd be fine with a policy of "you can rent housing you build" for American corporations
Builders are more concentrated than landlords in pretty much any geography. A concentration that scales with the amount of bureaucracy and bullshit required to get permits.