Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,576,900 times
Reputation: 16698
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquietpath
The vultures snapping up homes at a bargain to rent out are making it very hard for people of modest means to purchase one that is affordable to them. It forces them to continue to rent and pay a higher percentage of their income towards housing than if they bought a home and paid less for a mortgage. It's greed, pure and simple.
Maybe you missed the post I made about me wondering why people who rented from me for over $1000 a month didn't buy the same houses I did for 35 to 50K. The houses I bought being a vulture as you call me could have been bought by those same tenants. Instead of blaming the so called vultures why not put some blame on those that simply made their choice.
If I am greedy, then lets call those people who didn't buy idiots, and people like you who make ill informed comments stereotyping people who buy rentals one of those idiots and very naive.
Some of the homes bought are those boarded up. Guess what-no one gets any use out of them. At least an investor who saves his money and risks it by bringing back as a livable rental has brought another house available as a living unit.
BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager with some $7 trillion, yes, trillion, under management invested in over 100 countries. That’s more than the combined GDP of Germany and France. They dominate the stock ownership of every major exchange in the world, top shareholders of the major oil companies and world largest coal companies.
This particular article is talking about how the world's elite are using climate change agenda as an investment vehicle, which is off-topic, but I'm referencing it in relation to their influence.
The relevance to our discussion here is that those people, buying up single-family homes, are behind the global urban design agenda, which includes destroying single-family homes and putting up large apartment complexes. You buy a single family home, and put in a 40-unit apodment. That $600K investment is now worth millions. The $2 trillion dollar stimulus package that Biden is pushing (at the behest of those elites) REQUIRES that localities eliminate single family housing if they want any money for infrastructure or transportation.
The bolded claim was false when it first appeared in April and remains false today.
The bolded claim was false when it first appeared in April and remains false today.
While it’s a bit of a simplistic summary, it’s 100% true.
Is the White House’s fact sheet summary of the bill, straight from their website, good enough for you?
“Eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies. For decades, exclusionary zoning laws – like minimum lot sizes, mandatory parking requirements, and prohibitions on multifamily housing – have inflated housing and construction costs and locked families out of areas with more opportunities. President Biden is calling on Congress to enact an innovative, new competitive grant program that awards flexible and attractive funding to jurisdictions that take concrete steps to eliminate such needless barriers to producing affordable housing.”
There’s a lot more that breaks it down even further.
We're looking to relocate, and have been online shopping for a while. Last year, there were tons of affordable properties wherever we looked. Now, there are few properties, mostly in bad shape, and waaaay more expensive. Plus, they're selling fast. It's like 2005 out there.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,576,900 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by steiconi
We're looking to relocate, and have been online shopping for a while. Last year, there were tons of affordable properties wherever we looked. Now, there are few properties, mostly in bad shape, and waaaay more expensive. Plus, they're selling fast. It's like 2005 out there.
Guess we'll wait and hope for another 2008.
If you’re waiting for another 2008, you may never get a home. Except for those trying to get clicks, most predict a slowdown, but not a reversal. Certainly not like 2008.
While it’s a bit of a simplistic summary, it’s 100% true.
Is the White House’s fact sheet summary of the bill, straight from their website, good enough for you?
“Eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies. For decades, exclusionary zoning laws – like minimum lot sizes, mandatory parking requirements, and prohibitions on multifamily housing – have inflated housing and construction costs and locked families out of areas with more opportunities. President Biden is calling on Congress to enact an innovative, new competitive grant program that awards flexible and attractive funding to jurisdictions that take concrete steps to eliminate such needless barriers to producing affordable housing.”
There’s a lot more that breaks it down even further.
That's saying they want the barriers to multi-family housing eliminated, it doesn't mean they are doing away with single family homes, that's just silly paranoia.
That's saying they want the barriers to multi-family housing eliminated, it doesn't mean they are doing away with single family homes, that's just silly paranoia.
I’m not sure if you’re being obtuse intentionally? It’s there in back and white from the horse’s mouth. What more do you need? Prohibitions to multifamily housing is single family zoning. It’s already being eliminated entirely in cities and states across the country. Obviously SFH will still be built (on tinier and tinier lots), but with the elimination of R1 zoning, 4-6+ units can now occupy where a house once stood in a residential neighborhood. With zero parking requirements.
“Granny Flats” are now being called “Granny Towers” as corporate owned single family homes near the campus of SDSU are having apartments put up in backyards. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
I’m not sure if you’re being obtuse intentionally? It’s there in back and white from the horse’s mouth. What more do you need? Prohibitions to multifamily housing is single family zoning. It’s already being eliminated entirely in cities and states across the country. Obviously SFH will still be built (on tinier and tinier lots), but with the elimination of R1 zoning, 4-6+ units can now occupy where a house once stood in a residential neighborhood. With zero parking requirements.
“Granny Flats” are now being called “Granny Towers” as corporate owned single family homes near the campus of SDSU are having apartments put up in backyards. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
That excerpt said nothing about prohibitions on single family housing. Allowing both multi family homes and single family in the same area is not contradictory. A single family home by itself doesn't prohibit multi-family. Zoning laws saying "not zoned for multi-family" is prohibitory.
Judging by tent cities in cities across America, maybe there are certain areas that need more multi-family, so they are trying to address it.
While it’s a bit of a simplistic summary, it’s 100% true.
Is the White House’s fact sheet summary of the bill, straight from their website, good enough for you?
“Eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies. For decades, exclusionary zoning laws – like minimum lot sizes, mandatory parking requirements, and prohibitions on multifamily housing – have inflated housing and construction costs and locked families out of areas with more opportunities. President Biden is calling on Congress to enact an innovative, new competitive grant program that awards flexible and attractive funding to jurisdictions that take concrete steps to eliminate such needless barriers to producing affordable housing.”
There’s a lot more that breaks it down even further.
And nowhere does any of that indicate that single family housing will be eliminated. It "REQUIRES" nothing. Requests to Congress from the president are simply requests. You cannot cite a line of legislation that has imposed any such thing. It is projected to be a program based on the carrot, not the stick and based on the actions of local government.. Nothing in the infrastructure policy you link calls for such requirements. Someone is using it to make a political issue and is making false claims to do so. Why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
