Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Because there is not enough for everyone and the property should not be treated as an investment.


sort by: page size:

Some people can't afford homes because investors are buying them. There is zero reason to believe that prohibiting investment properties would allow everyone to afford a home.

It's not an investment if you live in the property.

Owning property in a place where all the money is leaving is a poor investment.

Because this is my home, not your investment. Invest in something else if people living their lives on their own property seems like too much of a risk to your "investment".

The buyers who are being excluded do not want to rent. They might want a place they can visit for a few weeks, but mostly they want an investment property.

And here's the problem - "investment". Residential property should never be an investment,it should only be a place one calls home.

We wouldn’t let a private company buy all the drinking water or food so they can profit from it, and we shouldn’t let them do it with housing.

Only humans should be allowed to own residential property and we should limit how many so there enough to go around, and so they are affordable.

Housing can not be simultaneously affordable and a good investment.

Clearly, they are doing this because it’s a good investment, which means houses are unaffordable for people who need a place to live.


Because they're the ones who own the property.

They don't provide value; they gatekeep resources.


No offense, but if there's a 100k lot, it's because noone wants to live there.

Well, obviously people who already own apartments nearby don't want values of their own ones - mostly purchased on mortgage - to fall, because it could ruin their retirement.

Within the democratic society, there is no fix for this problem.


Rich people won’t buy houses if there isn’t a stupidly low restriction on capacity. That’s the same reason they don’t hoard land.

Why?

I'm not saying rich people can't have their second place on the lake or that companies aren't free to build apartment complexes. What benefit to society does allowing businesses and landlords to own portfolios of single family homes and rent them out offer?


That isn’t a solution either, because individuals and businesses with the money will simply snap-up the real estate.

Discouraging multi-ownership and preventing residential ownership by business mes needs to happen as well.


The right reason for not investing in residential real estate is because it’s immoral.

Every house owned by a landlord is another house not owned by an owner occupier.

The landlord renter system has divided our society into haves and have nots. It’s modern serfdom in which landlords own families.

So sure, you can avoid investing in real estate for financial reasons but you can also avoid investing in real estate for the same reason you don’t invest in gambling smoking or fossil fuels….. to invest is to support something fundamentally wrong.


I am on the same boat as these people that can't afford a home with these property prices. But, I don't blame other people for having more than me. The concept of private property is that anyone can do whatever they want with their property.

It's entirely common for luxury properties to be seen as investments. Having people actually live there would reduce their value as investments. See any of the new luxury skyscrapers in Manhattan, whose units are mostly vacant despite being sold. More luxury housing doesn't solve a damn thing.

The original properties are just too expensive for single owner occupiers

Because the benefit to the owner of the building (the one paying for it) is almost zero.

Housing isn’t an investment in a common enterprise.
next

Legal | privacy