logoalt Hacker News

TurdF3rgusontoday at 4:25 AM2 repliesview on HN

If you don't mind investors being unwilling to do new construction. It's a band-aid on a much bigger problem.


Replies

dmurvihilltoday at 5:01 AM

I don't mind ending the type of construction that's recently been occurring.

show 1 reply
Nursietoday at 4:39 AM

That depends on the market. I’m not familiar with St Paul Minnesota, but here in Perth, Western Australia this is raised as an argument every time someone proposes anything to do with rolling back investor tax breaks. That and “there will be no rentals!”

The truth of the situation here is that there is more than enough demand for new housing anyway, directly financed by wannabe homeowners, that ‘investment’ goes 90% into existing stock, not new builds, and that investment properties actually create rental demand as investors crowd out would-be owner-occupiers from both existing houses and new-build opportunities.

In Melbourne, where measures to reduce the attractiveness of investment have already happened, the price of housing has levelled off comparative to other capitals in Aus, and rental availability has actually gone up.

The underlying problem is of course supply, but there appears to be a limit to how fast the building industry can actually build more stock, so with huge demand and limited supply, we don’t need to encourage as much speculation or landlordism in the market to get more built. All it does is add heat and pump prices.

show 1 reply