Reserve homes for people
We have investors grossly profiting from flipping houses here in Oakland without regulation. This is a big part of what is driving the housing crisis, yet public officials turn a blind eye. We will never build enough affordable housing to make up for the massive number of homes being taken out of the affordable pool by speculators. Also, these investors typically remodel with unlicensed contractors and without permits. If they could not get away with that so easily, they might be dissuaded.
Incentivize investors in the housing market, allows government to change positions and provides a slight return on investment (for the financial interests of investing in RE. Housing stock is needed to stabilize communities. The problem with investment is large swings to make $ (profit and loss). Stabilized investments should be like IRAs or CDs...a steady albeit small rate of profitable return; we need to stop treating RE as a financial tool alone..Let equity work as it was intended.
This assumes that current renters will be able to afford to buy. Reducing the supply of rental properties would only increase the cost to rent due to a limited supply.
If renters can afford to rent, then they will be able to buy a home once this idea is implemented. The cost of SFRs and Residential Condos will decrease because of the lower demand from the restriction on who can buy. Diverting investors money from SFRs and Residential Condos into multi-unit housing will increase the number or units available (not decrease) because multi-unit housing is more efficiently built than SFRs and Residential Condos.
It will work.
It's simple and makes perfect sense. Investment in real estate should be regulated like the stock market anyway. Why not make sure folks live in the communities that they invest into?
I own a duplex which I did not purchase as an investment, it was the only way for me to afford a mortgage and a home to live in. So as long as exceptions like that are allowed (as well as ADUs to rent that are associated with an owner occupied property-with limitations of course) for owner occupied properties, I do strongly agree that single family homes, duplexes and triplexes should be off limits to investors that don’t intent to live in them.
I am conflicted about this but see the overall merit. I am concerned about the comment "must be owner-occupied in order to rent individual rooms." is the effect it may have on room-mates/subtenants
Owner occupied buildings seem like they would be more invested in the community and city on the whole.
Back it up with some data and evidence. I'm sure there is some helpful information out there on why this would be helpful and that can help guide the details of such a policy.
If it’s good business sense as well as humanitarian, sounds like a winner. A built in term of trial period/ re-evaluate effectiveness could soothe some fears of gov overreach. Corporate overreach is the greater of evils. ]Do i sound waffley? Disclosure: I work for small business property managers in Oakland, and do not envy them for the pressures coming at them from many sides.
The state and Fed. Government should provide low income housing and not Apartments or condos. Single family homes. People should not be caged or where housed.
I respectfully question some of the assumptions by a couple of anonymous users below. Seems to me there are too many moving parts to predict the odd spawn of mixing govt/ lg corp /and small business interests. If it turns out as simple as it sounds in your projection i will gladly accept the new reality. May the best ideas win and everyone have decent choices on where to live. preferably, this century.
Back to group
Back to group
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation