[stouset]

Yes, we understand that AirBNB is having negative effects on communities. Perhaps something should be done. But banning “investment properties” in a way that de facto bans rental units is not only a nonstarter but also a terrible idea in general.

[Arainach]

Why?

I'm not saying rich people can't have their second place on the lake or that companies aren't free to build apartment complexes. What benefit to society does allowing businesses and landlords to own portfolios of single family homes and rent them out offer?

[disgruntledphd2]

Who will rent houses to people who can't afford homes?

[matt74827289]

People can't afford homes because investors are buying them all at high price to turn around and rent them out.

[anamax]

And they either rent them at a high price or they lose money.

Like I wrote above, a friend of mine owns two houses. Under the proposed "no investment residences" rule, he can't, unless he leaves one of them vacant almost all of the year.

For some people, renting is the right thing. It's unclear how banning rental properties makes their life better.

[totony]

Does your friend need a second property? If there was such a ban someone else could buy it that would have stayed in it/rented it anyway

[stouset]

How exactly do you think somebody else could have rented that property if somebody wasn't allowed to purchase it for the purpose of renting it out?

[stouset]

Some people can't afford homes because investors are buying them. There is zero reason to believe that prohibiting investment properties would allow everyone to afford a home.

[totony]

Just like not everyone can afford a rent. The point is to make things better not to fix homelessness.

[stouset]

And you genuinely think that reducing the number of available rental units would make things better for the overwhelming majority of people who currently can't afford to purchase a home outright?

[anamax]

The only legal rentals under the proposed rule is as room mates.