[AequitasOmnibus]

If we’re talking about ideal housing policies, why not extend it to say that individuals seeking primary residence should get priority over investors or secondary purchasers. AirBNB operators are just as predatory if not more in these markets than non-citizens.

[cstejerean]

How would you implement "get priority"? I think there's already some prioritization in terms of being easier to get loans for a primary residence, and better tax treatment, etc.

But I'm not sure how you'd prevent an investor from outbidding an individual looking to buy a primary residence. You'd have to force the seller to accept a worse offer, and even if such a law was passed I don't think it would survive scrutiny from the courts.

[AequitasOmnibus]

I think the easiest way would be to change local property taxes in a way that disincentivizes investors. For example: a “cap” on property taxes for purchasers who declare the home as their primary residence, and a substantially higher tax rate for secondary homes that compounds per home owned by the investor in the jurisdiction (e.g. Primary Resident owner gets capped property taxes at 3% while AirBNB investor who owns 4 homes would get taxed at 15% on investment house 1, 30% on house 2, 45% on house 3 and 60% on house 4).

[ke88y]

If you are going to do this, it needs to be paired with price controls on rental housing. Otherwise the expense is passed on and becomes a de facto regressive tax on (usually poor) renters.

With respect to short term rentals in particular, outright bans are the easiest and most effective policy. Some cities allow for 30 days of short-term renting as long as the unit is a primary residence for the property owner for the other 335 days of the year. I think that's a fair compromise that achieves the ostensible goal of the "sharing economy" without hotel-ifying the entire city's housing stock.

[mixdup]

>If you are going to do this, it needs to be paired with price controls on rental housing. Otherwise the expense is passed on and becomes a de facto regressive tax on (usually poor) renters.

I would expect a jurisdiction progressive enough to have a scheme as previously described to also probably have rental price controls/subsidies/etc to assist with high rents. That said, the market price for a rental will be what it is. Landlords charge exorbitant rents because people pay them.

If the landlords' taxes cause their cost basis to be too high to make the rent hit the market, the landlords will get out of the market. Which is kind of the whole goal.

[friend_and_foe]

I don't know how effective this is in encouraging home ownership. The primary goal for tax incentives on primary residence vs investment property is that it makes owning a home cheaper than renting. Rent controls have the opposite effect, and so create a situation where nobody is incentivized to own property at all.

[cstejerean]

That seems to be how it works in Vegas, 3% cap on owner occupied houses and 8% cap for non-owner occupied houses. Maybe that's not steep enough to discourage companies gobbling up houses though and the rates would need to be higher.

[muro]

You could still have each property be a primary residence for a different family member, but it might still help.