Jeff Bezos-Backed Real Estate Company Is Launching A New Fund To Acquire More Single-Family Homes Across The U.S.

•

This is a fund for small investors to make money on the housing market, so probably not either of the above

This is a good business idea that just happens to only function because one of our systems is totally broken. The business itself is not the problem.

•

Can we finally focus on real estate reform now?

This latest housing crisis has made it abundantly clear that allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to own single family homes is destructive to society as a whole.

The priority should be owner occupied homes. People need housing security. If even the middle class with career jobs can't afford a modest house in their peak working years, the system is broken.

We can attack this runaway housing inflation by doing the following:

Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.
Limit individual ownership to 3 (as an example, number doesn't matter) dwellings. This will curb the rampant "buy for short term rental, parlay into next purchase for short term rental" scheme. We still need rental properties, and small local landowners should be the priority.
Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I've seen 100%) markups after 3 months.

Each of these wouldn't be outright bans which would potentially too big of a disruption. But in phases, using increasing tax penalties as the stick.

We need to stop treating homes as a commodity. They are a basic essential.

paddirn

•

I still don't understand how this hasn't been a bigger priority in government. I wouldn't expect Republicans to care about it at all, but it feels like nobody is giving it any attention at the State or National level. These out-of-control rents and housing prices are insane. I've got a relatively ok salary and I'm barely staying on top of things, but I don't know how the hell anybody else is still holding it together.

•

Lobbying and self interest.

These reforms may result in housing prices decreasing or holding steady. Which is a plus for anyone entering or laterally moving to occupy. It's a negative for people using housing as an investment.

It's not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would "hurt" them personally.

Same with WFH endangering commercial real estate. Lobbies and personal interest. Plenty of business owners in politics.

•

It’s not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would “hurt” them personally.

More to the point, it will cost them any support among suburban homeowners, which is how we got here in the first place. That's a massive bloc of voters and very few homeowners don't see their homes as an investment

•

Yes, the "fuck you, I got mine" is the core American voter demographic, unfortunately.

mjhelto

•

Only cause the boomers make up the largest voting block right now and they know no other policy than, "fuck you, I got mine."

•

Sadly prominent in the younger home owner crowd too.

"Well, did you buy when interest rates were low? No? Guess it sucks to be you"

BURN

•

There’s also the fact that plummeting property values is really hard to sell to the majority of the voting base. Many homeowners won’t vote for someone who will tank their often largest asset. A lot of the middle class has a lot of their money in mortgages on their primary home.

ghostdoggtv

•

Landlords have a constant stream of income that they can use to affect politics while that same stream of income negates the occupant's ability to influence politics. Renters ought to unionize.

Olgratin_Magmatoe

•

As always, citizens united was a disaster for our country. Or at least, it was a disaster before, and citizens united turbo fucked an already terrible problem.

djsoren19

•

The Dems only real position right now is "not being Republicans." They're barely able to maintain the status quo and prevent us from backsliding further, there's very little chance that any forward progress towards a better future is going to come from them.

mjhelto

•

Not sure why you're getting down voted so much. We have no truly leftist or left of center parties in this country. We have fascism-lite and status quo right.

When Nixon won he won by a super large percentage. Almost all the states were red. Look at the electoral map for Nixon's win, if you can find it, it's shocking. You know why it looked like that? The DNC ran a progressive candidate. And they've not done that again since.

Not saying Dems aren't better, by far they are, but they aren't progressive and we can't expect them to enact progressive changes.

Just gotta keep voting for the lesser of the evils until these dinosaurs either retire from, or die in, office. It's sad, it's frustrating, but it is all we can do for now. Keep voting for the party not actively rooting for a dictatorship and we might make it through this.

archomrade

•

My mantra is, "change happens everywhere but the general"

General elections need to be reformed before a real progressive candidate has a chance at election, and even then, a progressive president has little chance of enacting real reform once in office.

Those reforms happen and the local, state, and Congress level, and even more often they happen at the union and labor level.

People are bickering over our binary choice for president, but the real focus should be on the lower offices. When you're shooting to kill, you dont aim for the head and fire once , you aim for center-mass and steady yourself for repeat shots. Or I guess you get real close and use a sawed-off.

shadowSprite

•

This is why I hate the Dems. They aren't fucking doing anything. Yeah, they aren't Republicans, but they claim they can't get anything done because the Republicans won't let them. Then why are they letting the Republicans get so much evil shit done? How is it that one side can accomplish their agenda and the other side sits and goes "sorry guys, they don't want to share their power so we won't be able to accomplish our goals lol better luck next time. " Fucking useless twats.

Sami_Uso

•

People down voting this but not arguing it is pretty telling. Libs hate being criticised but can't argue it without sounding whiny "they tried!!"

AlexWIWA

•

Local and state politicians are all landlords and real estate developers unfortunately.

Argongas

•

I would add a progressively higher tax rate for each property beyond 2-3.

•

Most definitely. When I said limit to 3, I meant exceeding the limit would incur progressively higher taxes.

We need to eliminate large holdings. They help no one but the investors, at the cost of everyone else.

ghostdoggtv

•

HOAs should be banned too. They're nominally constitutional under the first amendment but the restrictions they impose are not worth the price you pay in dues and they only serve to restrict the actual property owner from pursuing happiness. Everything the HOA could do is a function of local government, there's no sane reason to pay both property taxes and HOA fees.

AlexWIWA

•

I don't think they should be banned, but their power should be severely restricted.

My HOA is actually useful because they've banned short term rentals, put a cap on long term rentals, and cover the insurance. Granted, this is a place where walls are shared.

I also don't see my local government ever taking care of these things under any realistic scenario.

zzzz

•

You've got my vote.

Rivalarrival

•

Exorbitantly high residential property tax rates, with even higher owner-occupancy credits.

Landlords will stop renting, and start issuing land contracts or private mortgages. "Tenants" will hold the deed to the property, and be earning equity. "Landlords" will have a major incentive to get their investment properties under contract and out of their name, lest they face a huge tax bill.

Buddahriffic

•

I think there is value provided when someone buys a dilapidated house and renovates it into something worthwhile to sell, even if it takes less than 2 years.

Or for me personally, I bought less than 2 years ago but the experience has given me a better idea of what I really want and I'd love to be able to sell to break even on this place and buy a different place that more fits my needs.

High short term capital gains taxes would help with the 2nd case (as I don't intend to make money from owning this place briefly) but not the first.

•

I'll take capital gains tax as a reasonable compromise.

I will say that I don't think keeping "renovation" flippers intact is a strong motivation. They are infamous for putting in shoddy cosmetic work to hide serious problems. At least if someone needs to occupy a renovated house for 2 years, they may actually be motivated to do things right.

•

I absolutely agree that we need to focus significant energy on a more stable housing (not homeowner) market.

However

Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.

This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.

Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.

This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you'd need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn't somehow be abused by flippers.

I'd also love to see protections baked in for people who purchase prior foreclosure/condemned properties and turn those into marketable/livable homes - that's an increase in supply and we should encourage it

What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I'm sure you'd agree, but that's a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.

•

Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.

This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.

Disagree. How does this discourage builders? Afaik, most don't build with the intent of renting out individually. The intent is to sell. And at least in my high demand area, units are sold well in advance to actually being ready to live in.

Unless you mean the necessary first step of buying land with an existing home on it. In which case, it'd be easy to add fair exemptions.

Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.

This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you’d need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn’t somehow be abused by flippers.

How so? Most buyers are entering a 30 year mortgage with their finances thoroughly vetted. If you're saying the first 2 years is extremely risky, maybe those loan regulations need to be revised.

Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.

What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I’m sure you’d agree, but that’s a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.

Of course, building is a necessary component. But it's touted as the only solution. Realistically, building high density living won't make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as "luxury" condos that demand a high price. Builders are not motivated to flood the marked to lower their own returns. They will time their projects to trickle out to keep demand high and returns maximized.

•

Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.

I didn't see this, but I would definitely agree with this. Really simple lever to pull, something that can be offset if need be, and will definitely have the impact we're looking for.

Realistically, building high density living won’t make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as “luxury” condos that demand a high price

This frees up housing downstream, and the builders make money by building, not by the eventual value of the home.

This ties in with point 1 above and why I think it will cut production. Right now there is essentially 0 risk in serving as capital to build housing, and we should be piling on that to build as much as possible.

conditional_soup

•

I'd argue that better urbanism is part and parcel of real estate reform. It would be much more difficult to entirely fuck up the housing market if we weren't so utterly dependent on single family homes and there were more apartments being managed by small to mid-size firms.

kool_newt

•

100%

honey_im_meat_grinding

•

We still need rental properties, and small local landowners should be the priority.

Landlords aren't necessary for rentals to exist. We built hundreds of thousands of government owned properties every year(!) the UK's post-war period. Some of them have bad rep for looking like soviet blocks, but modern social flats look like any other now so that isn't a valid complaint anymore (I have to point them out to friends, they otherwise wouldn't have a clue). These can and have been very much used for temporary accommodation, like private rental units.

If you're more of a market economy fan: we also state-funded housing cooperatives, democratically owned housing. Vienna is the popular example where they even have shared communal swimming pools, but 20% of Norway's entire population lives in them and they're still growing steadily despite not having gov. funding for decades. It's not impossible to come up with a way to use these as rental units while retaining the democratic element (i.e. the renters "own" the flat while they rent it and "sell" it on when they move). In Norway, for example, you're exempt from property transfer taxes when you sell a coop flat meaning there's no tax friction if you want to move from one coop flat to another. Since the flat is never technically yours in a coop (only the share giving you the right to reside there) it just goes back to the coop when you move out, and they can handle renting it on to someone else (so you don't need a slow bartering process to move out). Your rent can also straight up go towards a larger share in the property, so you're not propping up some landlord, the only thing you're really paying for is management of the coop like you would with a privately owned block of flats anyway (except the coop probably wouldn't spend thousand on an Xmas tree).

If we're going to be thinking about government regulation and law changes anyway, we may as well try more than just small ""ethical"" landlords. They may well be part of it in some limited way but let's think beyond just that.

PsychedSy

•

The worst got torn down after 20ish years.

AlexWIWA

•

I'd go a step further and say you can only rent out what you built. No buying existing housing in cheap areas to rent out.

If you want to be a landlord then you can pool your money with other people to actually create housing.

IHadTwoCows

•

•

Feel free to pass it on to your representatives!

nature_man

•

Probably a controversial opinion but companies should not be able to own residential real estate at all, the reason most people cant get a house is because big companies are buying them up with limitless sums of money so they can rent them out infinitely, its not a free market when the big company will pay 20% over your entire life savings just to make sure you don't own anything.

Linkerbaan

•

Not just limitless sums, companies are borrowing at very low interest rates and skyrocketing real estate prices with free money. Consequelty also causing mass inflation. So you're paying for them owning houses.

AceFuzzLord

•

Absolutely nothing controversial about the truth. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite of controversial, at least in this case.

ComradePorkRoll

•

Controversial would be, "if the government won't stop corporations from buying up single family homes, we should do it ourselves by any means necessary." That's controversial.

guacupado

•

Controversial but true.

notannpc

•

Not controversial at all. The world would be a better place if residential real estate “investment” didn’t exist.

noyou

•

Yeah no this isn't controversial. Private landlords serve no purpose in society. You just pay them their mortgage for the privilege of living in their house. It's ridiculous.

iAvicenna

•

%100 no brainer

tmyakal

•

I agree in the case of single-family homes. Even in cases of 3 or 4 unit buildings. But how do you propose full-on complexes get run if not by a company? Very few individuals have the capital to buy a 50-unit building, and honestly, the US needs more dense urban housing to help reduce our impact on climate.

LostWon

•

Easy. Non-profit co-ops, ideally as part of land trusts. They keep prices reasonable, give all community members a say, and the people who are lucky enough to live in them love them.

thenightisdark

•

My opinion that would be just like asking who would own the streets you use to get to it.

We don't wonder how that really expensive bridge gets owned... Sometimes it's due to tolls but not always.

31337

•

Cooperative-like legal structures and public housing are viable options.

noxy

•

Condos. (for non-Americans, this means "apartments except owner-occupied, or at least individually owned and then rented out"

I lived in a 200+ unit condo building. Owned my unit and some proportion of the common stuff and had voting rights and such in the HOA.

Marin_Rider

•

residential property should not be able to be bought by corporations, there is no benefit in allowing that to happen at all

Aleric

•

It's sure beneficial for the rich fucks behind these companies. Everyone else gets fucked.

•

No, that's not any of this works. In a free market, it's entirely possible (and often the case) that both the rich fucks and everyone else benefit.

I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and also Poor Economics by Abhijit V. Banerjee.

edit Based on the voting response, I guess I should have suggested something from Dr. Seuss first.

Aleric

•

Then pray tell, how is private equity purchasing homes benefiting everyone else?

•

It increases the overall supply, brings more resources and stability to the housing market. Corporations that specialize in house rental have a opportunity to view market data. All this combined benefits everybody.

rainynight65

•

Only if these corporations are actually required by regulation to make these houses available for rent, and at market-adequate rates. If a company is as cashed up as this one is likely to be, they'll only rent to people who are willing to pay higher rents, and if there's nobody who wants to rent a specific property, they'd rather leave it sitting vacant than lower the rent.

This isn't hypothetical, it's happening in practically every property market where wealthy investors are buying up housing stock.

eskimofry

•

Free market doesn't exist without regulation

•

That is true. Protecting the free market is one of the few legitimate roles of the government.

•

Lol please tell me this comment is a joke.

•

Lol please go read those books so you can stop being so ignorant.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/603416/leading-apartment-owners-in-the-us-by-units-owned/

•

Please humble yourself and acknowledge that maybe you're not an expert on the subject after reading "the basics of..." book about it. Just a thought.

Keep in mind that there are people who have dedicated their careers/lives to studying this stuff. Don't disregard rebuttals just because your "basics of economics" or whatever book didn't get there yet.

The real world just doesn't work that way. But maybe if you went beyond Econ 100 level shit (or honestly, not even), you would have learned that.

wanderingmagus

•

Have you considered looking outside every now and then? What's your answer to the discrepancy between any previous generation and modern day? https://www.investopedia.com/millennial-homeownership-still-lagging-behind-previous-generations-7510642 https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/millennials-still-underperforming-amid-gains-in-homeownership-rate https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/

Blackmist

•

It's been bought by them for a long time now.

They used to just buy your mortgages, then they started cutting out the middle man.

RememberTheApollo_

•

Sure there is. Just not to the regular person.

ExLisper

•

People should not be able to buy residential building? /s

•

USA has roughly 15 million vacant homes currently. If this company manages to fill some of them with people, that means there'll be fewer vacant homes. Obvious net benefit for all.

edit I guess you guys enjoy that there are homeless people then

masquenox

•

Oh look... a capitalist shill using homeless people as a propaganda prop to do apologetics for the capitalists that caused all the homelessness.

Yawn.

argarath

•

The reason those houses are vacant is because companies bought them and are now pricing them out of the reach of most consumers

•

How do you think businesses work? By pricing the things they are selling out of reach of consumers?

How much money does a corporation make by just owning a house? I think it's not as much as renting it.

Syrc

•

Free market can work in fields where competition is plenty and entering is cheap.

When the amount of “players” in the market is so small they can collude to keep prices high it all falls apart.

•

No, free market never works, because all people cannot be experts on all subjects at all times.

Because of that, you end up with people dying as "collateral damage" while the free market "corrects itself." Things like: "Well they should have done their research and known that brand of car has faulty brakes, and went to a different company instead, so it's kind of their own fault." Or, "this is just part of the process. Now everyone will know (lol right) that this company makes cars with faulty brakes and stop buying their products," while completely ignoring that these are fucking people that are dying. That's not ok.

And what if a company decides to hide things about their product from the public? What happens when that very product ends up giving people mesothelioma, but because that's an illness that can take decades to manifest after exposure, there's no clear causal link to the regular consumer. How does the free market correct that one? Or do we just let people suffer and die horrible deaths so that we can keep using the cheaper kind of insulation and save a few bucks?

Sorry but the loss of human lives is not ever acceptable "collateral damage". Especially not when the loss is 100% unnecessary.

Syrc

•

That’s not price regulation though, it’s more about quality control. I’m assuming there’s already laws in place that prevent glaringly faulty products from being sold (…unless the lobbyists start messing with stuff, but regulations wouldn’t really solve that either).

It was more about the “free market keeps prices low” argument. It does if we’re talking about easy-to-access markets, but it falls apart if the entry barrier is so high and the only parties can easily collude.

•

Do you know that real estate investment exists? A house is an asset, and unless the entire economy crashes (like in 2008), then owning homes (even if empty) will make you easy money. It's an appreciating asset. I could be wrong, but I also believe it's very good for laundering money.

Wealthier Chinese nationals have been doing this for years in the US and Canada (look at what Chinese real estate investment has done to the housing market in Vancouver, for example).

S_204

•

Hol up. Lolololol.

Are you saying that the rich fucks who are buying up housing stock will make them accessible to the houseless population of America?

Aleric

•

So far they actually have nothing to say beyond "nuh uh you're wrong", which is effectively nothing at all. I've asked them to explain, we'll see what we get.

•

Are you saying that the rich fucks who are buying up housing stock will make them accessible to the houseless population of America?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

FurtiveFugitive

•

... Proceeds to let the crickets explain their position

Nudding

•

Then what the fuck are you saying lol

•

They don't know. Look at their comment above, the book they recommended to everyone was "the basics of economics" or something.

I really hope it's a troll, because holy shit the narcissism it takes to read an Econ 100 level (if even that) book, and think you're an expert on the subject. Wild.

Nudding

•

It reads like a landlords son lol

S_204

•

And please explain the economic theory behind your post. We have history as far back as the start of capitalism. It shows your post to be completely out of touch with reality. If you have proof evidence or a functioning theory of why your post would lead to Las vacancies and more accessible housing for people, I am very interested in seeing it.

I've got a feeling though that you don't have an adequate response or you would have posted it. So if you're going to reply without a response, maybe all you need to do is post an apology..

orrk

•

so, you think the reason that the homeless people don't live in these homes is because... they wouldn't be able to pay rich people money if they did?

how high do you have to be to make the statement "look I would love to not freeze to death, but only if I get to pay half my income to Amazon" seem reasonable?

ICastFist

•

A surplus of homes does not equal less homeless people. If their prices, either as rentals or for buying, is too high, it can actually increase the number of homeless people.

Blackmist

•

Vacant does not mean unowned.

Plus I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't want thousands of crackhead row houses in shit areas.

rainynight65

•

If there are 15 million vacant homes now, then a company made up of wealthy investors buying up heaps of them at the current inflated prices isn't going to change anything. Those houses won't become living spaces for poor and homeless people - they'll sit vacant until someone comes along who's willing to pay the exorbitant rent.

homesweethomeMrL

•

100% tax over a billion dollars.

Yeah all the $40k/yr MAGAts gonna haaaaaate that

Illuminostro

•

Also tax stockpiled stock.

Coldgoron

•

Fuck these rich assholes.

nofoxgiven

•

"Fuck our parents and their generation"

If you have an investment account and own some mutual funds, you probably own shares of some REIT.

netburnr

•

Yeah we get to hold the loss for the nex5 bubble, useless office buildings.

shasta

•

We could also just not do that. Ban all of those.

mojo

•

Literally straight up evil

Modva

•

It will not stop. The government won't step in, because they are all in on it. Their money comes first, above all else. The way they treat me homeless people today is how you will be treated tomorrow.

There is only one way to stop the runaway cancer of greed, and it's not by writing angry notes.

•

I feel like the answer is a tax strike. Most of what taxes do today is move money from the poor to the rich, while occasionally moving some from the middle class to the poor (and constantly threatening to take that away). A tax strike could break all of this pretty quickly, or at least force them to attack and show what they're really about.

A tax strike could take care of a number of problems, like this and the complete unwillingness to address climate change.

AceFuzzLord

•

If you were to actually get people to participate in a tax strike, the government would just round everyone up for something like tax fraud or some other tax related crime and ship them to the for profit prisons and make them even more money. Only solution would be, in my opinion, to overthrow the rich and let their heads roll.

•

Actually, there are a lot of people who do tax resistence for religious reasons. Quakers regularly resist taxes because they assert their religious right not to pay for war. There are both legal and illegal ways to resist.

Let's compare two scenarios: (1) a large number of people carry out a peaceful tax strike and are arrested, (2) people start killing "the rich."

In scenario 1, even after arresting people the system is still starved of resources. A violent reaction could even elicit more people to join or prompt a violent resistence that would overthrow the system.

In scenario 2, if people actually end up killing anyone they're arrested or just straight killed. They are seen as crazy people. The dead rich people are replaced with new rich people. Nothing changes. This has been tried a lot of times before. Even getting to the point of killing one billionaire would take several people working together. Spend some time just imagining how it would actually work, like how a plan like that would actually work, and you'll understand why it's not a good first option.

guacupado

•

The dead rich people are replaced with new rich people. Nothing changes.

It will absolutely change things. The only reason this won't work is because things aren't actually bad enough yet that anyone is willing to go to jail for this. I don't even want to go to into detail because I don't know if that'll get my banned or put on a list (lol) but if enough if the rich are publicly brutalized, it'd make the next person hesitant. This isn't a movie where there's always another evil general ready to replace the first.

•

If that was going to work it would have on September 6th 1901. It didn't work then, or any other time. Do whatever you want, but if you want to be useful there are much more effective things to do. Honestly, rich people are also trapped in this machine.

Capitalism, like patriarchy, means suffering for everyone involved. This includes the dominant group. They are also victims, just in a very different way. Brutalizing them would do nothing because they're already afraid. That's why they're killing us. They're afraid that if they give up power we'll exact revenge. That's why they can't just stop even though they know we'll all die.

iAvicenna

•

eat the rich!

Modva

•

As a thought exercise sure, that would work if it could be done at coordinated scale.

Practically though, doesn't seem achievable considering how manipulated most of the population is on billionaires.

•

It depends on how it's done. It definitely requires scale to work, but it's not unachievable and it doesn't have to start at scale. I don't even think the majority of the population is that manipulated. The majority wants radical change. Authoritarianism relies on the illusion that most people are brainwashed, and that illusion simply isn't true.

TexMexBazooka

•

If you’re a W2 you never even see the money that gets taken for taxes