|
|
|
|
|
|
by clpm4j
433 days ago
|
|
|
The solution lies in eliminating the entire concept of investment properties, and to classify single-homes as purely places to live. You do realize that part of "not enough" houses is due to corporate entities / investment vehicles / investors owning many properties. And the types of cities (dense, highly-desirable urban cities like SF, London, Paris) where the NIMBY people complain most often also happen to be the most common markets for these investors to purchase/own multiple homes. |
|
|
No, I do not realize this. This is only possible because of limited supply. If the supply was not limited by government and nimbys then it would not be profitable for "corporate entities / investment vehicles / investors owning many properties."
It's also irrelevant, no amount of preventing "corporate entities / investment vehicles / investors owning many properties." will do anything to keep prices low as long as demand is high and supply is low.