[McScroogy]

The rich outbidding poor people is not what is causing a housing shortage. There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Even if you assume that every rich person keeps a number of spare houses, there are not enough rich people to cause a housing shortage.

[yarcob]

The problem isn't a "housing shortage". The problem is that interest rates are so low, so everyone who has a bit of money on the side tries to invest in the real estate market.

The result is that for every house thats sold, there isn't just someone who wants it as a living space, but also 5 people who want it as an investment. So 5 people outbid each other, the highest bidder gets it, and then the sucker who wanted to live there but couldn't afford to buy it ends up renting it.

The problem (at least where I live) is absolutely not that there's too little housing. The problem is that a lot of people want to make money from the real estate market, which drives up prices.

Also, because these investors really really want to make a profit, they'll rather let an appartment sit empty than charge lower rent. The appartement I live in was empty for a year because nobody wanted to pay the high rent. (I was able to negotiate a bit, but it's still pretty high)

Pretending that the people who use the real estate market as investment don't profit off the working class who can barely afford housing is laughable.

[px43]

My brilliant* idea to solve the real estate problem is to tax the hell out of properties that are sitting empty.

Something like a 2x or 3x multiplier on property taxes or something, especially in densely populated areas, and especially in areas where there is rampant housing insecurity. The tax needs to be greater than the potential gamble of waiting for occupants. This should be both for residential and commercial use real estate.

*facetious

[Aunche]

It's a myth that there are just a ton empty houses sitting idly like that. The reality is that the most expensive housing markets are also the ones with the least vacant. Even after a ton of people temporarily moved out of NYC during the pandemic, like me, the vacancy rate of NYC is still less than that of the entire US.

[px43]

> It's a myth that there are just a ton empty houses sitting idly like that.

Maybe where you live. NYC and SF are special in that they have very powerful people working to reduce the construction of new housing. This is obviously what needs to get fixed first in those markets, but it isn't a relatable problem in most of the US.

> The reality is that the most expensive housing markets are also the ones with the least vacant.

This is a basic supply and demand observation, and does not preclude the existence of people who allow their properties to sit vacant for long periods of time.

Looks to me like in NYC the vacancy rate is up to 6% (from a previous steady 2-3%) while housing insecurity is increasing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/08/empty-rental-apartments-in-m...

https://cccnewyork.org/press-and-media/family-homelessness-i...

To my eyes this seems like a tragically dumb problem with several really obvious solutions.

[p49k]

This exists in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the richest people once again find ways out of it, such as claiming the unit is uninhabitable due to renovation, and proceeding with the slowest and most inefficient renovation process imaginable.

[Robotbeat]

The solution is just a land value tax.

You don’t get taxed on improvements to the land, you get taxed on the value of the land (ie based on the value of the surrounding land... a vacant lot—or a lot being “renovated”—pays the ~same tax per acre as a 3 story apartment building next door instead of an order of magnitude less).

[ryanianian]

Not without pretty severe fallout for those on the other side of the equation. That same tax would force long-time homeowners and retirees out of their houses as soon as the neighbors start selling to build condos. Maybe this isn't a terrible thing if it leads to more density, but the profit still goes to the developer.

[Robotbeat]

On the contrary, in your scenario, the profit goes to the retirees whose land is now super valuable. That they can’t afford to pay the wealth tax on that land without selling/mortgaging some of it doesn’t mean they’re not now very wealthy. A mortgage or a reverse mortgage would allow them to live the rest of their lives there if they really wanted to. But they’d have to pay their fair share of the tax on that wealth.

[dntrkv]

You could waive fees for primary residences and tax the hell out of investment properties. I don't understand why prop 13 in California didn't work this way.

[kwere]

society still benefit from it

[Agenttin]

I've often thought this about those dark strip malls and grocery stores. They need to be incentivized to either lower the prices so low that someone will move in, or to demolish the building. Just marking it off as a loss every year while it slowly decays destroys the property values nearby.

[nostromo]

That’s a zoning / central planning failure.

We have too much retail space in America and too little housing, but zoning has often made it impossible to repurpose the land.

[benrbray]

I have a different idea that maybe I can get some feedback on here. Maybe it's really dumb for obvious reasons, so please tell me.

Construction companies that build residences are clearly creating value for society, so they should be allowed to make some kind of profit. Real estate agencies that buy property from construction companies are doing a very bad thing by renting them as "luxury" housing to people who otherwise have no choice since their livelihood is tied to an urban area.

Why not put a cap on the profit that can be made from a residence? Something like 5x construction costs, plus ongoing costs of maintenance. Suddenly, the "luxury" housing market is no longer suffocating all the affordable housing out of town since the property owner can't expect to rake in the piles of money every month.

[ryanianian]

If we say "no more profit after 5x" then buildings will constantly be torn down and rebuilt or otherwise "re-constructed" to reset the clock. Renting property has its own ongoing risks as any landlord will tell you, and we reward risk with (potential) profit.

Many buildings are "luxury" in that they cost 15% more to build but then ask for 50% higher rent. It's not hard to find buildings that were once "luxury" but are now kinda gross since the veneer has peeled off. But there's not enough competition in housing to force the rent lower.

What gets people fed up is the seemingly universal constant of rents raising 10% every year despite no additional investment.

[ryandrake]

The multiplier should be the number of empty houses owned.

So if you have house A that you live in, whose tax bill is $10K, and house B that's empty, whose tax bill is $7K, then your total tax should be $17K.

If you additionally have house C that is also empty, whose tax bill is $8K, then your total tax should be $10K + ($7K + $8K) x 2 = $40K.

If you additionally have house D that is also empty, whose tax bill is $5K, then your total tax should be $10K + ($7K + $8K + $5K) x 3 = $70K.

This would strongly incentivize against this activity of having one person or entity simply hoovering up homes and treating them like bars of gold.

[marto1]

> solve....is to tax

You won't solve sh*t. Just like the other gazillion times new taxes were introduced to solve something.

Well, I mean, unless your goal is to make the poor even poorer.

[ralphhughes]

This is actually being tried, starting this month, in my area (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56293250)

Monthly council tax will double for properties that do not have occupants. This is due to my area having over 10% of houses being bought as holiday homes or investments that stay empty for most of the year.

[rjmunro]

In the UK, it's not just low interest rates, it's also that the rules on renting have made it more attractive for landlords and less attractive for tenants. For example, you used to need a good reason to evict someone, now you can just evict them whenever you like.

Once you moved in, increases in rent used to be regulated. Now a landlord can charge whatever they want after the initial period and if you can't afford it you have to leave.

Landlords used to have to maintain and fix the property. While they still do in theory, in practise they often just threaten one of the two options above to anyone who wants a repair done.

[nybble41]

> Landlords used to have to maintain and fix the property. While they still do in theory, in practise they often just threaten one of the two options above to anyone who wants a repair done.

That's not very smart. So the current tenant leaves, and then what? Good luck finding someone else to rent the property at the original price without fixing the issue…

[TuringNYC]

I agree with the premise of what youre saying. I dont think the ratio is 5:1, but probably more like 1:5 -- but -- more importantly -- doesnt this make it good for renters because now there are investment properties in an ample environment looking for people to rent?

I would argue that it is low interest rates AND low supply. If supply was sufficient then renters would just rent the houses which were purchased, possibly at a discount.

[wonderwonder]

It does not as the new owner now has to have the rates high enough to cover the mortgage on the house he just purchased in a bidding war. moreover, the person that wanted to buy it and live in it is now priced out and has to pay rent and misses out on the asset appreciation.

[rafale]

To cover the mortgage, the owner has to pass it to the renter. If the renter could afford the rent, he can afford the mortgage, which mean he can probably afford the house in the first place. Sounds like the stupid people outbidding each other will lose money on the rent because renters are not outbidding each other.

[JoshuaDavid]

> If the renter could afford the rent, he can afford the mortgage

This is not necessarily true. In Los Angeles, for example, the price-to-rent ratio is about 38, i.e. if you pay $1000 / month in rent for a place, buying a comparable place would cost you about $450,000 (38 * 12 * 1000). There are a lot of people who could afford to pay $12,000 / year for housing, but could not afford the down payment on a $450,000 mortgage.

For that matter, the interest payments alone mean that renting is cheaper than buying -- 3% interest on a $450,000 loan alone is already $13,500 / year, and that's before taking into account that you also have to pay property taxes (another $3,500 / year), maintenance (probably another couple thousand a year), and principle on the mortgage (about another $9,000 / year).

In less inflated housing markets, it is generally true that the cost of rent is similar to the cost of a mortgage, but that is definitely not true in all markets.

[comeonseriously]

> ... which mean he can probably afford the house in the first place.

Not true. The people (or companies) winning the bidding war for these properties are paying cash. Normals don't have $900K cash laying around to buy a property originally listed at 550K.

[happymellon]

You completely miss that a property that I purchase to live in will probably be both interest and loan while a property purchased to rent out will be interest only.

This means that someone buying it to rent out can get a loan for significantly more than someone looking to purchase, making it much easier to outbid them.

[luigibosco]

Not sure why you refer to the renter as "he", but anyway there are many reasons people cannot afford to buy a house such as living paycheck to paycheck, damaged credit, no collateral etc.

[gre]

Nobody should have to rent.

[ryanianian]

Not even 18-year-olds fresh out of their parents' house with no considerable assets, employment prospects, or credit history?

[gre]

Sure, why not?

[matchbok]

...and this would be ameliorated with more housing. Real estate is only a good investment if there is tons of demand.

[Shugarl]

Well, real estate has always been one of the best ways to invest money. But the problem is that there's much more demand than there are supply in some places. If a lot of people wish to live in a specific place, then the price will go up, and vice versa. You could buy several houses in small cities for the price of only one house in Paris, for example.

[aantix]

The renter doesn’t hold the risk. They can walk away.

If you want the profit, then hold the risk.

If you want the freedom of mobility, then rent.

[pnutjam]

I see you've been rightly downvoted. In the US, landlords also hold little risk, especially if they are corporate. Renters are stuck by leases and in many states, have little recourse to do anything when the property goes bad and the landlord won't fix things.

[aantix]

>landlords also hold little risk

Feel free to expand upon the argument of real estate as a "little risk" investment.

>Renters are stuck by leases

Leases are on average, an order of magnitude shorter than mortgage loans. Less exposure, less risk. Your leverage is to walk away after a year.

[pnutjam]

Every year they have more equity they can just cash out and walk away. Worst case, they lose the property and their credit gets ruined, exactly the same thing that happens to any renters that have to break their lease. Landlords lose an investment, Renters lose a home and their kids might have to change schools, etc...

[aantix]

>very year they have more equity

offset by property taxes? Maintenance? Inflation eroding the value of the equity. Time/cost of managing the property. Potentially depreciating property values, depending on area?

I've been a landlord. It's a money sink. Tenants brought in cats (against the lease) that peed all over, making the residence smell unbearable. Had to completely rip out carpet, reseal the floors to get the smell out. Ripped out stair case railings.

It's far from "little risk". It was a time and money sink.

The area itself did not appreciate in value. So after all said and done, definitely lost money.

I'm glad to be done.

I didn't "walk away" like the renters could. I fixed the house, the damage that the renters caused, I assumed the very liabilities that the renters get to punt on. Their leverage in the deal worked in their favor that time. They get to just move on.

[jjav]

> landlords also hold little risk

Landlords hold all the risk. There's risk of devaluation, risk of renters destroying property, risk of unexpectedly high maintenance costs, risk of insurance/taxes going up more than planned. If anything bad happens to the property, the renter can just walk away, the owner is stuck with it.

I'm not a landlord, sometimes look into it but every time conclude that the risks are far too high for what minimal profit it might bring. So I stick to index funds.

[pnutjam]

In what world are owners "stuck" with property? The bought an asset, the can sell an asset. Yes, they may need to absorb some losses, but probably not more then then several thousand it will cost a renter to move if the landlord does any number of things in addition to the risks you outlined above.

Yes, landlords have risk. My original point was that renters shoulder the same and more risk.

[jjav]

By "stuck with it", I meant stuck with the problem. e.g. flood damage renders the place unihabitable (nearly always not covered by insurance even), renter packs up and moves, owner is stuck with the problem and the expenses.

[aantix]

Rents are small portion of the overall loan size. They have a limited contract.

Less time and monetary exposure.

Renters incur less risk.

[comeonseriously]

Interesting video that makes some of the same points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBb9zf_zWvU

[literallycancer]

If you think being a landlord is such a great deal, why don't you do it?

[banannaise]

Some of us are not trying to get into the business of exploiting people with less money than us?

[McScroogy]

From your description, it seems to me that renting is cheaper than buying. So it seems renters get the better deal.

It's a pity if a flat is empty for a year, but that in itself also does not cause a shortage. After all, it was rented out after a year.

The market is supposed to deliver the flat to the person who needs it most. In that case, apparently it was you. Without the speculator, somebody would have rented it for a very low price long ago, and you would not have been able to live there at all. So maybe the market worked.

[kmeisthax]

Debtors have to make even on their mortgage, at least, so an increase in prices also drags rental rates up - either because the landlord bought later and has higher costs; or because the increase in prices drives up property tax and thus increases costs on existing properties.

If the market worked, you'd see people building multi-family units everywhere until supply caught up with demand, and then you'd see a huge crater in prices as people who took a bath on real estate speculation were overrun with the resulting supply glut. This doesn't happen, for a host of various reasons. Governments want housing to be simultaneously affordable and an investment, which is impossible. Hence most cities wind up building a sort of shadow immigration system, through rent control, selective property tax moratoriums, and so on. People who have lived in a city all their life enjoy lower rents, subsidized by people who just moved in and have to buy at market rate.

[McScroogy]

A market working does not imply the creation of unlimited supply. Governments that restrict building are an external factor. Markets can only operate within those bounds. Since land for building is scarce, prices rise.

There are other factors, of course. Just speculation does not really seem to be a major one.

[esyir]

Key word here being "working". The market is literally hindered here by said government. The natural response to high demand for housing would be more housing and higher density housing. Zoning laws do a fantastic job of hammering that down.

[pnutjam]

Renter here. I have yet to find a person who pays a lower mortgage then I pay renting. Renting also goes up every year with little ability of the renter to arrest that increase. In my experience the renter is usually paying the full cost of the mortgage, plus a little to the landlord. The landlord has no savings or interest in improving or fixing anything past the bare minimum.

[McScroogy]

So why don't you buy? I am in the opposite position. I would like to buy something, but I can not find anything that would be worthwhile (mortgages lower than the rent I pay at the moment, or lower than rent I could ask for renting out).

[Sodman]

Not GP but usually the big reason for not buying is that you either need a large amount down (20% in my market, or 10% + additional monthly "Mortgage Insurance" payments until you hit 23% ownership). Average home price in the "Greater Area" around the city (meaning you might still not live close enough to be able to use public transit) is currently ~$665,000 according to Zillow, which means you need to come up with ideally ~$133,000 to put 20% down, or ~$66,000 and pay a premium on top of your mortgage. Either way, this huge down-payment is in addition to the ~7-15k in closing costs you'll be paying. Even then, you're bidding against cash buyers who are willing to waive inspection, so good luck.

$70k-150k up-front isn't easy to save up for even above-average earners (remember, these are average home prices, not luxury homes), so anyone earning average or below is forced into either renting forever, or moving to another town.

[nly]

Mortgages are generally cheaper than rents right now in the UK, provided you have capital put down for a mortgage

[McScroogy]

But how much capital? You also have to consider opportunity costs of putting down that capital.

Maybe if I put down one million and borrow another 300k, I can get a low mortgage. But I also lost one million.

[nly]

Total return on the housing market has kept pace with the stock market in the UK for 20 years so there hasn't been much opportunity cost over here.

[ramphastidae]

> There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy.

Do you really think that’s a factor? That the wealthy say “My family has all bedrooms they need, so I’m done investing in real estate?” PE firms buy up entire communities and repackage their mortgages into investment products. Foreign investors will buy property regardless of location and never step foot in it if it’s in a more stable country than theirs. Real estate investing is not about finding a place to live for the wealthy.

[Robotbeat]

Then we should have a substantial land value tax. If they want to park their wealth in unoccupied housing, they’ll have to pay dearly for it. And they won’t get a cheaper bill by leaving it unbuilt or unoccupied.

[sanedigital]

It’s not just “rich people,” it’s “wealth.” Speculation in there housing market is a widely accepted contributor to rising housing prices: https://www.princeton.edu/~wxiong/papers/Speculation.pdf

[lou1306]

The comment was about house owning, though. Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes, it wasn't always like this.

[chrisseaton]

> Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes

Something like 60% of US people own a home. 30% even own their home completely outright, with no mortgage.

Obviously 30%, let alone 60%, of the population cannot be considered 'upper class', and 'middle class' is probably even a stretch.

The home ownership rate seems broadly stable since the 60s to me, with gentle ups and downs with the economy, so as well as saying home ownership is an upper-class or middle-class thing not being true it's also not the case that 'it wasn't always like this'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S...

[joh6nn]

4th paragraph of that Wikipedia article: "The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate because many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home, and because single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home."

[jtbayly]

> 30% own their home completely outright...

Which tells me that they likely bought their house over 30 years ago. Which tells me that they have been largely unaffected by the complaint you are responding to.

[rychco]

As someone in their mid 20’s with a tech job, it blows my mind that 60% of people own a home. I can’t imagine having enough money to own a home in a major city.

[chrisseaton]

> I can’t imagine having enough money to own a home in a major city.

Who do you think owns the homes all around you, and in all the suburban streets around the city? Normal people like you. There aren't hundreds of elites living on every US street, clearly. They're just normal people who saved up over a few years or got a little helper money from their parents.

[bashinator]

Don't forget, "or were lucky enough to have the opportunity to buy at a low point in the market."

[EdwinLarkin]

I think you just don realize the scope of numbers you need to play with especially if you dont start with a reasonable amount in the first place.

Real estate is worse than crypto when it comes to speculation.I realized this myself when my property doubled in value in less than 2 years.

[scottious]

Sure, maybe right now when the real estate market is really hot, but imagine people in the market around 2009-2012 getting a really good deal on real estate.

Once you're in the market, it's easier to STAY in the market. If house prices go up, you'll have to pay more to move to a new house but this is an easier pill to swallow because your current house has increased in value.

[rory]

The home ownership rate is a lot higher outside major cities. It's only 30-40% in most major US cities.

Regardless, at current (historically quite low) interest rates, a typical software engineer's salary will qualify you for a very large mortgage.

You'd be surprised. At 30, I saw many of my friends go from thinking they'll never afford a home to each buying one over just a few years.

[nly]

Median house prices in the UK are 8x median incomes. Banks will lend you something like 4-5x income on a mortgage.

Low interest rates aren't helping most people, they're hurting by pushing up house prices. Only those with significant capital for a deposit benefit.

[chrisseaton]

> Median house prices in the UK are 8x median incomes. Banks will lend you something like 4-5x income on a mortgage.

Most people buy as a couple, so this is achievable.

[rory]

Yes, sorry, I was referring to the USA specifically. The real estate speculation problem is a lot worse in other Anglosphere countries (UK, Canada, Australia). Outside California, US prices are still somewhat reasonable compared to incomes.

[McScroogy]

It doesn't say 60% own a home in a major city.

[CrazyStat]

> Obviously 30%, let alone 60%, of the population cannot be considered 'upper class', or even 'middle class'.

Huh? Why can't 30% (or 60%, for that matter) of the population be middle class?

Wikipedia [1]:

> The American middle class is a social class in the United States.[1][2] While the concept is typically ambiguous in popular opinion and common language use,[3] contemporary social scientists have put forward several ostensibly congruent theories on the American middle class. Depending on the class model used, the middle class constitutes anywhere from 25% to 66% of households.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

[chrisseaton]

One in three of people do not have middle class professions. Only about 35% of people go to college at all!

But anyway even if you don't agree with that, the original claim was that they were 'upper class'! Which is obviously ludicrous. You do not need to be an elite to own a house - drive down almost any suburban street in American you'll see people who own houses.

[bumby]

>the original claim was that they were 'upper class'! Which is obviously ludicrous

This goes back to the above post regarding the ambiguity around defining class. The traditional definition that I’m aware of uses quintiles, so “upper middle class” is defined as being within the top 20% (minus the top 1%-5% reserved for upper class). With this definition, the upper middle class will always be 15-19% of the population, on a sliding scale of income. This threshold comes out to about $87k/yr. at the individual level currently, I think.

But then people redefine that meaning. There was an article recently on HN saying the middle class is shrinking because more people are moving into upper middle class. They defined it based on absolute (as opposed to relative) income. But if you dig deeper into the research methodologies they normalized income so that a person making $58k/yr is equivalent to $100k if they are single. Magically, the threshold for upper middle class on an individual basis is reduced by 33%. (To be fair, they had reasons for this like the way poverty is defined by the government to factor in the number of people in a household).

I have a couple problems with this. 1) research indicates people are single, longer without kids because they feel less financially secure. It’s hard to square being single as a reason to be vaulted into upper middle class in that context 2) out of curiosity I took the average expenses for a mortgage, utilities, taxes etc. and tried to balance that against the $58k definition of upper middle class. In that case, if you have the average student loan debt you can’t afford the “average” American lifestyle even on an upper middle class income.

The point of all this being, we need to be careful about how we define economic class.

“If you torture numbers enough, they’ll confess to anything. “

[falcolas]

My parents own a home. They bought it in the 70's for a fraction of what the land is worth now (inflation adjusted). My dad was a blue collar worker for Ma Bell, my mom a part time teacher.

[JohnWhigham]

Now break that 60% down by demographic. Also, the rate has been going down over the past 2 decades, and I'd wager it will continue to go down.

[chrisseaton]

> the rate has been going down over the past 2 decades

No it hasn’t.

In fact it’s up since 1990! And about where it was as far back as 1970. It seems relatively stable to me?

[McScroogy]

The basic need for a house is something different than owning a house, though.

If owning a place to live is too expensive, it follows by logic that renting is cheaper than buying. Otherwise for the price of the rent, people could get a loan to buy.

So it really doesn't seem obvious that this is an issue of rich vs poor.

[xivzgrev]

Um investments?

Invitation homes owns over 10k homes https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/us-largest-pro...

In 2015, about 1/3 of vancouver homes bought were to Chinese nationals as investments https://www.fortunebuilders.com/one-third-of-vancouvers-real...

[neutronicus]

Rich people can charge rent on any number of houses, outbidding people in the edge of being able to afford owning a home

[mattlondon]

It is not just "rich" people.

In the UK there was a trend for Baby Boomers to buy up one or two (or more) properties and rent them out as a "nice little side income" etc in addition to their pensions at a time when savings interest rates were low, so there was no point saving (since returns were awful) and property loans were cheap. You even got a tax break on the loan interest!

These people are not mega-rich - just middle-class anybodies. I don't blame them - why leave large sums of money from your pension in the bank where you'll earn 0.05-0.5% interest a year, when you can spend it to buy a property that you can rent out for 5% yeild and benefit from property value increases if/when you need to sell.

The laws have changed a bit now to make it less attractive (no more tax breaks on loan interest, and more tax on "additional" properties you buy beyond your own personal home), and there is anecdotal evidence that "amateur" landlords are exiting the market in droves. Even so it has stoked the market considerably over a good decade or more, and so prices for even very modest "starter" properties (think 1 bed flats, small houses etc) are relatively unobtainable for the average person on the street or first-time buyer.

[sheepybloke]

While this is fair, you forget that real-estate is an investment opportunity. Between flipping houses becoming cool and rental properties being a good investment, if you have an extra couple hundred thousand you can make a strong investment right now. So yes, if this is an investment strategy and you have enough capital, they can just buy up all the houses.

[Tiktaalik]

Established wealth leverages their outsize influence and power to ensure that new housing for the poors isn't built, so that they can maintain their lush and leafy, exclusive rich person neighbourhoods.

There's literal mansion districts in my major city, where not only is building an apartment illegal, but even building a small detached house is illegal. How on earth did that happen??

[johndevor]

Exactly. Why is there no car shortage? Because politicians can't limit car production.

[wayanon]

But politicians can (and should in my opinion) make car ownership less attractive.

[wing-_-nuts]

Only by making public transit more available and reliable.

[wonderwonder]

They are not buying the homes to live in, they are buying them to rent out as investments.

[datacruncher01]

Less rich and more upper middle class (doctors, lawyers, etc) who are buying lots of properties as rentals.