I think the concern is local investors keep the money in the local economy, whereas 'foreign' investors are extracting value from the local community.

I think the concern is that rents are being controlled (and increased) by investors unfairly. There is always a market for rental properties (who wants to own when they know they will move in less than a couple years?); but there is concern that investors wield too much power.

I think this is only possible when large scale investors 'corner the market' by buying up a large percentage of homes in a given area. They can then control the rents because there is little competition.

On the other hand, if nearly every rental home is owned by a separate investor then each owner is competing with all the other small investors for tenants. They have competition and might be forced to keep the rents lower.

I disagree, landlords are price takers. There is not much I can do to drive my rents up if no one wants to pay it. If my rents are below market, I can get them up to market. But pushing it beyond that is competitive based on location and how nice the unit is.

Honesty the best thing I can do is to build more units on the land I own. That is challenging though so it takes time and capital.

You can thank single family home zoning and how difficult the city makes it to build for the rising rents. The landlords I know are very pro building. 14 units is more income than 4.

Imagine going one step further and having each home owned by a separate owner, not just each second home.

Rents are being affected by every investor, including those that own only two houses. Perhaps more explicitly by large companies with hundreds or thousands of properties, perhaps not. I've certainly spent enough time on threads in which people who own only a single rental property in addition to their own home compare notes on how to raise rents for more income in their pockets.

> rents are being controlled (and increased) by investors (unfairly).

With all of the regulations, risks, and high interest rates forced on landlords, I am wondering what you mean by "unfairly"? One bad tenant in Seattle, could mean months without income and even massive property damaged with no ability to recover damages.

As a small time landlord (I rent a few rooms in my primary residence), I feel that the rent I can charge is way below the risks of a bad tenant.

Small-scale investors are not necessarily local. It's anecdata, but I know quite a few Seattle-area folks who bought rental houses in LCOL/MCOL areas over the last several years because the local market was too expensive. They still pay property taxes, though, and most property managers are local-ish.

How are foreigners giving money to local construction companies and others in the community "extracting value"? Those foreign investors are capitalizing the community.

And they're taking out much more via rent.

If the owner of the property lives in the community, the rent that is being paid to that owner is much more likely to be circulated locally. If the rent goes to a foreign company, it's removed entirely.

Upkeep and maintenance would also occur regardless of who the owner of the property is, so it's not like they're creating "new jobs" because it's foreignly owned.

If the extraction of rent over the long term is an issue, do you also consider the extraction of mortgage interest by out-of-state entities to be a similar problem? This is how investments work, people inject money in now, in the hopes of returns later; the hope is that in the meantime, the locals benefit, and are able to create the foundations of longer-term success.

I agree interest rates extract value, but that doesn't mean that its ok for rent to leave the local economy too.

And the small investor can’t usually impact the housing or rental market on their own