Comment by unethical_ban
5 days ago
Why is it wrong to want to have equity in the place you live? "Ownership" could be a house, it could be a townhome, it could be flat. But in the US, "owning" an apartment is very rare, while real estate investors buy up all the valuable land in the urban cores of cities and rent it.
If you want equity in real estate nobody is stopping you. The problem is when people get this idea that we need to discourage investors from building very greatly desired rental housing.
This is the big problem with treating your home as an investment. People who just want a place to live near where they work now have to play this game too. And it's not cheap game.
That was what rentals were supposed to be. And then there was also such a thing as a "starter home". From what I see in Omaha, it's the developers that got greedy — figuring they could get more dosh turning a higher-end home than a starter home on the same lot.
2 replies →
My problem is that the wealthy get wealthier while the middle class gets subjugated to permanent renter class.
Go ahead, develop! And sell equity in the property. I've wondered if I would support my city requiring a certain percentage of dense urban lots be flats for sale vs. rental.
I'm pretty sure investors are persuaded by money and little else — if renting is profitable they'll build rentals.
> if renting is profitable they'll build rentals
The point is it's difficult and expensive to build in America. The core competency of construction in most cities is knowing how to grease the community boards', planners', affordable-housing advocates' and permitting offices' palms.
1 reply →