Hi Tradelite, RE: "but if the "current residents own multiple homes for investment", it must mean they are getting a good return on that investment"
Real Estate Investors' artificially good return is due to prop 13. Not due to market capital conditions, but due to false propping thru tax manipulations, all on the backs of NCGs (new college graduates.)
RE: "it must mean they are getting this return by renting to people who need to rent. Now.... please explain to me....how does this reduce supply of housing for your new employees?"
Here's how:
The government gives an incentive to Investors for owning more homes than one.
This reduces available supply of home ownership.
RE: "Is it because these employees are not paid enough to afford local housing opportunities or what? Really trying to understand what you mean by appearing to blame it all on Prop 13 and real estate investors....help me out here."
A business would have to pay a NCG approximately $150,000, if they wanted to purchase a house here. You know of any business in the world that can pay NCG's $150,000...help me out here.
RE: "which claimed California needs 200,000 additional housing units per year but is only gaining about 100,000."
They can probably get 100,000 new units simply by getting rid of prop 13 for investors who consume more than one home here and do not reside in it.
RE: "Sounds to me more like a housing shortgage vs. population increases than a problem with Prop 13 or real estate investors "holding on to more than their fair share" of property."
Your assumption is incorrect: more people have actually left the Bay Area than entered it, over the past couple of years, ironically too, when housing doubled.
Your conclusion is also incorrect, because you are incorrectly assuming the number of units held by investors in the Bay Area is not high. The figure is exceedingly high, when projecting the example out.
We need to get rid of prop 13 for investors (trusts, entities, same people listed under multiple trust entities) that do not live in their real estate.
Prop 13 was suppose to help elderly people, it was never intended to help Investors artificially reduce the housing supply, on the backs of NCGs.
Since when should Investors be treated better than NCGs?
NCGs create value. Investors don't.
The NCGs have gotten a really, really bad rap during this down turn. I'm not an NCG, so I'm not biased here when I say, this downturn has significantly hurt them on an aggregate basis more than any other segment of our population (which doesn't invalidate the very huge individual pain others are going thru.) I graduated during the previous recession, and that one was mainly (as an aggregate) on the backs of older people, but this one is hugely on the backs of NCGs. I've never seen anything negatively impact one class of people (NCGs) as much as this.
Since when should Investors be treated better than NCGs?
Locally, this will eventually cut off our air supply here. The media acts like people don't want to get rid of Prop 13 - maybe they need to take a poll that includes NCGs.
Regards,
Amy J |
