If a government truly wanted to fix a housing "crisis", wouldn't a ban on any type of corporate entity from buying single-family homes be an efficient solution? E.g., LLC's can no longer purchase single-family homes. Only real, live human individuals can purchase single-family homes. They could also try to implement some type of ban on any single individual person from purchasing more than 1 (or choose a number) single-family home.
Depends on whether you think renting a home is a way to solve the housing crisis.
If your definition of “solved housing crisis” is “everyone can buy a home,” a ban on corporate ownership could help a little.
If your goal is instead “everyone has a place to live,” no, corporate ownership is not inherently problematic.
I am a realtor and sit on my state's realtor association legislative steering committee, which this year sough to work with legislators on a bill that would limit mass corporate control over housing units... it's surprisingly more complicated than it first appears, and an area where realtors take a view that might be contrary to consumer expectations - we generally like the idea of limitations on corporate ownership, as it in theory creates the greatest opportunity for individual homeownership...
Anyway, some of the scenarios we ran into are things like the 2008 mortgage crisis - what happens if you end up in a market where there is a lot of inventory that no one can afford to hold? In my market, it's starting to look like a lot of builders (read: corporations) built too many houses either that weren't what consumers wanted or demand has shrunk (it is a town with a lot of federal jobs that are evaporating at the moment...). So can a builder hold that inventory indefinitely (assuming they can afford that) as a corporation? Likewise, people often don't want to hear this, but landlords do create efficiencies in the market - there are people out there that either don't want to own a home or can't qualify for a mortgage, and a landlord makes it possible to provide housing for those people as a kind of intermediary. We can argue over what it takes to qualify for a mortgage, but that's really a separate issue. We of course get into the issue of vacation homes or even situations like can I as an individual own a place for my business and a home - after all, they are both real estate, so how tight can we make these rules around ownership? Point being - the basic idea is sound, and some states like CA apparently already have laws on the books, but it's a more complicated matter than just one person == one house.
Why would that be a solution? What's the difference between the LLC that buys a bunch of homes and the LLC the builds bunch of homes. When the homes are done being built the LLC has morphed from an LLC that builds homes to an LLC that bought a bunch of homes.
The solution to me is to stop preventing people and companies from building homes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjWs7dqaWfY
Effectively, goverments and nimbyism prevent houses from being built. Even when some laws change to supposedly allow it other laws continue to prevent it. It's got nothing to do with LLCs buying existing houses, it's got to do with not enough houses period.
The solution lies in eliminating the entire concept of investment properties, and to classify single-homes as purely places to live. You do realize that part of "not enough" houses is due to corporate entities / investment vehicles / investors owning many properties.
And the types of cities (dense, highly-desirable urban cities like SF, London, Paris) where the NIMBY people complain most often also happen to be the most common markets for these investors to purchase/own multiple homes.
I agree that the core problem of housing affordability is that housing serves a dual role as an investment and a place to live. But I think this policy will not do very much and in isolation would even be counterproductive.
Why focus on single family homes? If corporate ownership is as bad as you are framing it then why is it OK for someone who lives in an apartment to be advantage of? Worse still, these entities would still want to invest in real estate so presumably they would invest even more in multi-family properties. If their ownership is what causes unaffordability, are you not making things even worse for people who live in multi-family housing?
One cause of the UK's 'housing crisis' (or rather un-affordability), just like other countries I suppose, is simply that if I buy other properties, I get: capital appreciation on the asset, and return on investment (by renting it out).
Offer me a £500k passive investment that makes the same returns with the same guarantees, and I'll take that over a house.
Except they don't. No other investment comes close for the British middle classes with that sort of extra cash. And the UK government will tax you to the hilt on everything else.
Exacerbating the problem, is that you can get a bank loan for additional properties.
The solution to the housing crisis is letting people build "not quite up to code" structures and relaxing zoning.
This means heavy handedly forcing local municipalities to change zoning.
A lot of people don't like that.
Zoning is a US thing. The article refers to the UK housing problem and we don't really have that problem, but I suppose that might fix the US market.
UK houses are a good investment, in fact the best investment for £500k, and also their price is additionally inflated by 'cheap money' and dual incomes.
Can't quite afford that house that's current 'under offer' at £500k? You might be able to find a bank that will lend you just that little bit more. 5.5x your salary? No problem. Congratulations, the bank has just helped push house prices that little bit higher. In the UK in the 1970s the single income 3x mortgage multiplier was on its last legs. Now it's 4+ times your joint salary. Madness.
Why would that solve a housing crisis? Functionally making it impossible to rent a SFH seems like a dick move.