A California lawmaker says corporate landlords are part of the state’s housing crisis and wants to limit them to owning no more than 1,000 single-family homes.
The 1,000 home cutoff was likely chosen so as to not unfairly exclude “mom-and-pop” investors, according to Ryan Lundquist
This bill will not actually solve the problem. If investing in making housing unaffordable is profitable, it will happen regardless of who owns the houses. Banning corporations, or foreigners from owning houses will not solve this.
They need to change the incentive structure. But that would ruin their investments, so lawmakers push bills like these that look like they’re doing something.
This is going to create some MLM shit. “We’ll invest in you to invest in these 1000 properties.” They’ll find a way to leave those individuals saddled with all the risk but can pull their money out whenever they like.
Why would they do that when they can just register a shell company for every 1000 properties? Companies are legal fictions and can be created whenever needed.
This bill will not actually solve the problem. If investing in making housing unaffordable is profitable, it will happen regardless of who owns the houses. Banning corporations, or foreigners from owning houses will not solve this.
They need to change the incentive structure. But that would ruin their investments, so lawmakers push bills like these that look like they’re doing something.
This is going to create some MLM shit. “We’ll invest in you to invest in these 1000 properties.” They’ll find a way to leave those individuals saddled with all the risk but can pull their money out whenever they like.
Why would they do that when they can just register a shell company for every 1000 properties? Companies are legal fictions and can be created whenever needed.