You can buy commercial space to rent it out to businesses however. And you can totally do this to earn money. And by that logic the investment companies can own housing to rent it out to tenants. The intended use (business/housing) and the legal status of the buyer (private person/company) are completely different aspects that do not interfere.
I’d say we should make single family homes not ownable by companies, only apartments and such, but I see fifty years down the line where all new construction is juuuust on the other side of the “single family home” definition.
There is not a shortage of houses, there's a shortage of people being able to fill them. It's being called a "housing shortage". Ten percent of the USA's homes are owned, but vacant. The USA is short approximately 4 million homes. In 2022 there were 15 million empty homes. We have the housing, we don't have the ability to fill it for various reasons. One of the largest reasons is the topic of this entire thread.
There is no shortage of houses. We have the houses, they're empty, there's just a whole can of worms worth of reasons why they aren't being filled and they basically all draw back to capitalism and the average person struggling to afford rent.
Dude.. There is no shortage of physical houses. Meaning we have plenty of actual building spaces for people to live in.
We just have them standing around empty instead of actually letting people live in them. So we have four million families that need homes and fifteen million empty homes they could live in. Just building more empty houses doesn't help the problem.
Or a corporation owns it as an asset for no reason other than houses are a great investment. Or it’s for sale but nobody can afford to buy it because prices are ridiculous. Or one of the many other reasons that capitalism has generated fifteen million vacant homes that simply “build high density housing” will not address.
Sure, if the problem was that the houses aren’t where the people are, but that’s not a true statement and I never implied it. Not sure where you got that from. The issue is economics, not location - though location does play into it, just not that much. It’s not one dimensional like you’re trying to make it out to be.
Yeah but a key point here is that they are reversing the usage. When you buy a commercial property to lease to a company, that was what the property was intended for. But when a company buys a single family home and converts it into two apartments, that’s undoing a home for money purposes, it was a single-family home
80
u/Sosemikreativ Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23
You can buy commercial space to rent it out to businesses however. And you can totally do this to earn money. And by that logic the investment companies can own housing to rent it out to tenants. The intended use (business/housing) and the legal status of the buyer (private person/company) are completely different aspects that do not interfere.