Eventually death, disease, or divorce will force properties to sell. That will move market values down. Meanwhile, my buddy’s mobile home manufacturer is back to being able to output a home in weeks. Construction has already fallen off a cliff-which makes sense given that’s the easiest to spin up/down of the market.
The RE market is responding to the rates. Though, whether it’ll be enough is beyond my knowledge or possibly anyone else’s.
If not, it’s precisely this sort of situation where change seems impossible that people can find the will to insist upon change.
For renters, I suspect regulation and oversight would go a long way. It’s not going to create a NYC level inefficiency if gobbling up SFHs for rental properties is curtailed. (And I’ve heard of at least one story suggesting AirBnB rentals may be unable to rent at current prices/supply.) Nor would outlawing problematic practices create problems.
In the west, people largely have a say in their governments. People just need to show up to elections and primaries with the demand that government work for them.
When I went to Newark 20 years ago the road I was on looked like an abandoned waste land. Today the area has multi level family houses and looks more like a walkable area. Ascetically it looks much better - if it’s really a better place to live I don’t know. It’s likely it needed massive investor cash to rebuild so I’m honestly not surprised.
I went to college in Newark from 2006-2012. Essentially the beginning to the end of the Booker era. Yeah they make a big stink about the new developments and how Newark was "Revitalizing" itself.
Nonsense: It was a dump when I started and was still a dump when I left. The thing is you don't realize it until you have gone to a place that has not had Newark's issues. Only then do you realize how much further they have to go.
I have been wondering about that. I’m not entirely certain of the effects either. Being held by corporate investors should mean they would be divested in certain circumstances, though.
Residences owned by corporations funnel wealth away from the community into the hands of the corporation. Renters also tend not to establish as deep community roots as there's no investment in the house or the neighborhood and they may move.
While on the surface that isn't "bad", when this happens in lower income neighborhoods it siphons what little wealth that is there away.
Additionally, as there's no investment in the house (call up the landlord and have them fix it up... in a while), it also means that the properties in the area tend to decrease in quality and make the homes that are owned occupied less valuable over time... and the community there less cohesive.
All these things together make it harder for people (frequently minorities) living in those areas to improve their lives and that of their children (can't leave a house you rent to your children or grandchildren to help them get a firmer financial footing as they reach adulthood).
As people die, etc their high paying jobs will be granted to new people. Some of which I suspect are real estate Marxists that will quickly become real estate centrists or conservatives. If you look at the math it sort of looks like this:
There are certain places people want to live and this is mainly a 2D geometry, with certain cases of 3D to a limited extent. 3D will always have detractors since it doesn't fit, it kills light, there aren't services to support the density, etc. There's a never ending conveyor of excuses, some which are actually legit. You aren'r building Manhattan again in the West. So as we grow we are forced to grow outward more than upward, and as anyone who has done a 4th grade pizza problem knows how that goes. Geometry! Applying math skillz to "real life"! Who knew?!
Now secondly, lets look at economic and class structures. We like to say "the middle class is vanishing" and that's partially true. But the implied place all these former middle classes are going, the lower class, isn't quite right. Today, the upper middle class is the largest it has ever been. Around 30% of the population (assume the top 1-2% are the upper class). That's huge and these are the people that can actually afford the "nice places in nice places". They throw a bone to a black person or a teacher every now and then via "equitable affordable housing" - just enough to keep the polls working, but never more.
So what we have here is a lot of people who think because they went to college and have an unimportant role in a middling corporation that they deserve a DREAM HOME in a PREMIUM LOCATION. There ain't that many of those. Especially when you consider that 30% of people are really pretty well off due to income in certain cases and inheritance/genes in others. A good friend of mine makes a shit wage and owns a 2M home because RICH PARENTS bought the house. They're still rich even after that! You just ain't one of them. You need to do it the hard way and earn it, like I did.
There are winners and loser and most people feel like they're a winner, or at least did all the things that winners do. But it's a crowded trade today. Good luck.
The RE market is responding to the rates. Though, whether it’ll be enough is beyond my knowledge or possibly anyone else’s.
If not, it’s precisely this sort of situation where change seems impossible that people can find the will to insist upon change.
For renters, I suspect regulation and oversight would go a long way. It’s not going to create a NYC level inefficiency if gobbling up SFHs for rental properties is curtailed. (And I’ve heard of at least one story suggesting AirBnB rentals may be unable to rent at current prices/supply.) Nor would outlawing problematic practices create problems.
In the west, people largely have a say in their governments. People just need to show up to elections and primaries with the demand that government work for them.