Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (12499)	8/17/2003 2:07:00 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

<<It's also hard to attract people to this area, if a high percentage of the current residents own multiple homes for investment, because this reduces the available supply for our new employees. This makes it harder to attract people here.>> Admit I know nothing about California real estate, but if the "current residents own multiple homes for investment", it must mean they are getting a good return on that investment or they wouldn't bother, and 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? 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. I need this help, because in the past week I read something in the Wash Post or Investor's Business Daily (don't remember which) which claimed California needs 200,000 additional housing units per year but is only gaining about 100,000. 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.