The current situation is a giant fucking windfall for anyone who owns existing housing in CA. It’s like someone is writing a giant 300K check to single family homeowners in SF every year.http://www.beyondchron.org/cities-tax-huge-profits-stopping-housing/ …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @johnleemk and
Much rather have windfalls, if any, go to local families than hedge funds. But obviously we need to change the current system, which will reduce that windfall to families. I am perfectly okay with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @coolgrey @johnleemk and
What if the hedge funds increasingly own single family homes in California? https://shelterforce.org/2015/07/29/reo_to_rental_wall_streets_latest_idea_hurts_california_communities/ … What if the real estate developers’ investors are public pension funds like
@CalPERS?https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/06/exclusive-costs-are-stalling-anew-soma-housing.html …2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @johnleemk and
This is actually a real issue and gets at the inadequacy of the "SFH" language. We need a way to distinguish clearly between investment property and homes.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @coolgrey @johnleemk and
Primary and secondary residence. Shouldn’t get tax benefits if it’s not a primary residence.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @johnleemk and
The whole model of housing is just f--ked. I can't seen any realistic way of reconciling "housing is a right" with housing as an investment opportunity.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @coolgrey @johnleemk and
No and sorry, America is literally built on this principle of the sanctity of property rights and property rights being a core part of its version of democracy. That’s not changing anytime soon. So you have to work around it or at least mitigate it.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @coolgrey and
yet again, hearing convenient apologies for the real estate industry.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrsdcook @coolgrey and
The “real estate industry” is not a monolithic entity. Apartment owners and builders of new housing and real estate agents don’t have the same interests. Anyway when you figure out how to convince American voters to willingly destroy the largest pt of their wealth, let us know!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @coolgrey and
I know it's not monolithic, but to deny that there is a corporate real estate industry and developer industry that's pushing this agenda is disingenuous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
apartment owners like scarcity -- enables them to charge more rent without doing any extra work. Real estate developers want to build. Different entities have different interests & agendas.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @coolgrey and
Yes I'm aware of that, that's pretty obvious. But it feels like you're trying to obscure the fact that there are strong industry interests behind this build baby build agenda.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrsdcook @kimmaicutler and
Shockingly the people who would benefit from building more housing are quite vocal in their support of building more housing, no matter how base or noble their motives might be.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.