[lvs]

Perhaps this crowd won't agree, but "income properties" and "real estate investment" are horrible things when it comes to residential real estate. This is THE major driving force for urban cost-of-living increases on both American coasts. If I could downvote the whole concept of this industry, I would.

When speculators speculate on food commodities, people argue that it provides market liquidity to justify why that's not entirely illegal. Well, real estate is by definition illiquid, so speculative activity in this area benefits nobody but the speculators.

[gatsby]

>If I could downvote the whole concept of this industry, I would.

So, are you the one that downvoted most of the comments in this thread?

>"income properties" and "real estate investment" are horrible things when it comes to residential real estate

Don't confuse flipping houses with actual real estate investment. There are 45m renters in the US, all living in "income properties." Why is this horrible?

[lvs]

> are you the one that downvoted most of the comments in this thread?

Yes, and I said I would.

> Don't confuse flipping houses with actual real estate investment.

I clearly haven't, but why you imagine there's some moral distinction is unknown to me.

[gatsby]

I still don't understand why you think RE investment is morally wrong.

Would also love to know how you came up with, "real estate investment...is THE major driving force for urban cost-of-living increases on both American coasts."

[lvs]

Just read my top comment or talk to any economist. You're gambling with fundamental human assets (as are food speculators), except that in urban real estate, there is very limited elasticity in supply. So your self-interested activity takes profit off of and drives up the cost of living for no gain to anyone but you. The fundamental value of the asset is unchanged for your involvement, but the price is higher.

[eldavido]

Urban coastal real estate is expensive because more people want to live there.

Jobs + great weather + anti-development policy = high prices.

Really...it's that simple.

[lsc]

>Jobs + great weather + anti-development policy = high prices.

The thing is, the anti-development policy is a big chunk of that, and it derives directly from "real-estate investing" (and not just renting, owning.) - so you could say that you are agreeing with the parent, I mean, if you take a generous interpretation of "real-estate investment" that includes homeowners who consider their house to be an investment.

Who votes? mostly people who own property and want that property to increase in value. This means we (here in silicon valley) have a regulatory system that makes building new high-density housing quite difficult.

In California, the problem is exacerbated by measures like prop 13, which insulates property owners from the tax consequences of increased home values.

Leasing, I agree, is super unpleasant. Especially in commercial situations. (It's like buying, only less flexible!)

But, it's a really difficult problem to solve. I mean, encouraging or subsidizing homeownership seems like an obvious first step, but that has non-obvious negative effects on the regulatory regime, because more homeowners means more voters voting for policies that make building more housing difficult.

I mean, obviously, parent comment isn't being productive; but one can trace a lot of the high cost of living at least here in silicon valley to homeowners blocking high-density construction in an effort to drive up the value of their own assets.

Of course, the parent comment seems to think that renting out real-estate is a major part of this... and personally, I don't think that is the case. I don't think that landlords are the political force that homeowners are, and the scarcity of housing, at least in silicon valley, is largely a political problem.

[lvs]

No, it really isn't, and you're dramatically ignorant about how the American real estate market presently functions if you think that's true. (Great weather? You think the east coast has great weather? You're joking clearly.)