19% of California houses are owned by investors

Re:19% of California houses are owned by investors by lo_zamoyski on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @04:49PM (#44817681)

> If you want to fix CA real estate, scrap prop 13, force granny to sell and move to the boonies (to avoid the massively ratcheted property tax she will now be paying), and you’ll have a massive supply of homes for sale.

Sounds callous.

I would focus first on banning the use of homes as investment and permitting mixed-use, medium- to high- density construction (with something like 15 min city as a point of reference) before we reach for the big hammer and start coercing the poors out of their homes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:19% of California houses are owned by investors by bpt3 on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @04:55PM (#44817739)

By "banning the use of homes as investment" I assume you mean renting them out.

You realize people live in those rental homes, correct?

Also, why is it desirable to force all renters to live in an apartment (assuming those are not banned, and people who are unwilling or unable to own their residence are not forced to wander the streets)?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:19% of California houses are owned by investors by lo_zamoyski on Saturday August 09, 2025 @11:42AM (#44847376)

Think systematically. Why are so many renting?

I was talking about private equity/institutional and foreign investors, specifically. An average young family cannot compete against them, especially in a housing shortage.

Don't hide behind the "freedom" defense. Being priced out of housing isn't freedom. Housing is a place to live and to build a life, not an investment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:19% of California houses are owned by investors by bpt3 on Tuesday August 12, 2025 @07:30AM (#44874922)

Not being able to buy a SFH isn't being priced out of a place to live.

Home ownership is higher in the US than many other countries, and banning certain groups from participating in a sector will not increase supply.

[ Parent | on HN ]