Corporate landlords stealing the American Dream

I wasn't sure where to put this, but the issue of real estate investors is becoming hugely problematic and only seems more likely to worsen in the years ahead.

Jove rents from Invitation Homes, one of the country’s biggest players in the single-family rental market. The real estate giant owns over 80,000 properties nationwide, hundreds in Northeast Florida alone, and is now at the center of an inquiry led by Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff.

Launched in May, Ossoff’s investigation also includes other corporate landlords – Main Street Renewal, Tricon Residential, and Progress Residential – that he says are inflating rental markets, outbidding families, and locking out would-be homeowners in Georgia.

Click to expand...

Nobody should be allowed to own 80,000 ****ing homes. Nobody. Call it socialism or whatever - fine. That's 80,000 families that could live in a home that's more affordable, owned by one corporation. They're not the only corporation that does this either.

multivita-man said:

I wasn't sure where to put this, but the issue of real estate investors is becoming hugely problematic and only seems more likely to worsen in the years ahead.

Lawmakers say mega-landlords are snatching up the American dream — leaving renters struggling to get ahead

Many Americans may be stuck in "the rental trap" since corporations bulk-bought homes during the 2008 financial crisis.

www.yahoo.com

Nobody should be allowed to own 80,000 ****ing homes. Nobody. Call it socialism or whatever - fine. That's 80,000 families that could live in a home that's more affordable, owned by one corporation. They're not the only corporation that does this either.

Click to expand...

The rental housing market is turning into or already is an oligopoly. I'm not sure how that problem gets solved.

The article says corporate ownership is only 3% of the national market, which doesn't seem to be a big deal.

But you have to balance that figure with the idea that being the national rate is 3%, but they tend to concentrate in defined suburban markets. It would be interesting to know that within those targeted markets, what the percentage is and for that number of homes it will be a much higher percentage.

The question becomes how to address the problem, should it be done nationally or should it be done by the State or should it be address by local government. For example only allowing X% of homes within a certain market to be used as rental property by those that own 10 or more units within that market as an example.

WW

lynnwinslow said:

The rental housing market is turning into or already is an oligopoly. I'm not sure how that problem gets solved.

Click to expand...

I am fortunate in that even though I live in of the most brutally expensive rental and housing markets in the US, I have managed to find places that are affordable. But I am a single, middle-aged male. I don't have children. It's different for families or for young couples who want kids. Or even for couples and single adults my age who might be taking care of their parents or grandparents. I guess the family values party doesn't give a shit about things like that, though.

WorldWatcher said:

The article says corporate ownership is only 3% of the national market, which doesn't seem to be a big deal.

But you have to balance that figure with the idea that being the national rate is 3%, but they tend to concentrate in defined suburban markets. It would be interesting to know that within those targeted markets, what the percentage is and for that number of homes it will be a much higher percentage.

The question becomes how to address the problem, should it be done nationally or should it be done by the State or should it be address by local government. For example only allowing X% of homes within a certain market to be used as rental property by those that own 10 or more units within that market as an example.

WW

Click to expand...

This is probably a problem for local governments to solve, but they're going up against very large corporations and even larger lobbies.

The hard part with rentals is that your base housing costs will continually increases.

On the other hand with home ownership you can typically lock in your mortgage (P&I) for an extended period (i.e. 30 years). I specify P&I (Principal and Interest) as those costs remain fixed, there may be other increases in escrow (property tax, insurance, etc.) - but those will typically be lower that rental increases.

It's the cylce that is hard to get into. In the younger years, the mortgage can really stretch the budget, but as time passes that fixed P&I begins to help as over time most peoples incomes will increase while mortgage P&I remains flat. That means - theorectically at least - base housing costs become a small percentage of income.

WW

WorldWatcher said:

The article says corporate ownership is only 3% of the national market, which doesn't seem to be a big deal.

But you have to balance that figure with the idea that being the national rate is 3%, but they tend to concentrate in defined suburban markets. It would be interesting to know that within those targeted markets, what the percentage is and for that number of homes it will be a much higher percentage.

The question becomes how to address the problem, should it be done nationally or should it be done by the State or should it be address by local government. For example only allowing X% of homes within a certain market to be used as rental property by those that own 10 or more units within that market as an example.

WW

Click to expand...

Exactly.

When we bought this house, our mortgage expense was about 20% of our income. Uncomfortable, but do-able, even with 2 kids, you learn to pinch pennies and make it work.

Now the mortgage for the same house is about 5.9% of our income.

DISCLAMER: We have refinance twice over the years, lowing the interest rate each time. We refinanced the balance (which we could have paid off) over COVID for 30 years at a rate of 2.7%. So technically our mortgage P&I is just under $500 a month (about double that if you include escrow). My wife is concerned going into retirement that having NO debt will have a negative impact on credit rating (which it can), so we maintain the small mortgage to keep that up if we were to need to tap credit (unlikely as we are pay-go, but as they say happy wife.

WW

WorldWatcher said:

The article says corporate ownership is only 3% of the national market, which doesn't seem to be a big deal.

But you have to balance that figure with the idea that being the national rate is 3%, but they tend to concentrate in defined suburban markets. It would be interesting to know that within those targeted markets, what the percentage is and for that number of homes it will be a much higher percentage.

Click to expand...

They are literally owning the libs. But it's the plutocrats who themselves tend to live in large cosmopolitan centers and not the working class guy from Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Missouri.

Good news for people who already own homes. Keeping the price up. Home ownership funds a lot of people's retirements.