REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
***Official Real Estate Thread***
- Thread starter One-Off
- Start date
If they have net worth in multiple B and the V they're sticking the P into wants it, what the hell.
I'm not sure I agree, it seems like people are much more inclined to desire to move cities than they were 50-100 years ago
corpos want in on the landlord take. that’s not good for the average renter.
Some mom and pop landlords are desirable, sure, but corporate landlords suck a d.
This.
Recently, my wife was the listing agent on a bluff top house in Leucadia and the eventual buyer has FU $$$ and didn't care if the place fell into the ocean. They said they or their grandkids would enjoy watching the dolphins and pelicans until then if it ever happens.
Why?
Regardless, mom and pop owners make up about 80% of SFD landlords. They’re also more likely to use investment properties as short term rentals than corporate landlords, thus reducing homes for rent and homes available as primary residences.
I'm not sure why anyone would be happy about corporate entities buying single family homes.
With a small time rental owner, I can think of many positives. Primarily that the property might cycle back into inventory sooner than later. With a corporate owner, market manipulation feels much more likely.
What are the positives to increased corporate ownership of SFH?
ftr im not commenting on whether that's good or bad, but that building housing that better fits needs/desires is good.
His bachelor pad is on the sand in Del Mar. Thing is built to handle most of what Mother Nature can throw at it.
The Beach Colony homeowners are up in arms about managed retreat and want the City/State/Fed to help save their homes should sea level rise really threaten them. My response is that a big storm or set of storms will sweep most of them away long before sea level rise becomes a real issue.
Interesting.
I forget who the dude was that was building a house at Beacon's, but my mom was working for the contractor years ago.
Place was a silly money pit.
I thought Billy G sold his Del Mar dog beach pad.
Whose needs and desires? Corpo’s need to chase a bottom line and it is a desire of people to not be homeless.
that’s not a winning situation.
housing is a need not a want and mixing in corporate profits will be a long term win for society just like private utilities aging infrastructure.
Like I said, there are a lot more people who want to move locations regularly now, for them home ownership isn't the right option. Building housing that fits that better makes sense.
Not sure why you're insisting on conflating that need with whatever corporate point you got.
Another way to look at it is there are a lot more people that would buy where they are if they could, but rent is too high to save and purchase prices are too high to get in.
both things can be true, and likely are.
many people are priced out of home ownership and also many people than used to be are wanting to move regularly.
I think he reno'd it and moved in part time after the divorce. There's a lot of wealth on that strip of sand.
source? not that I don’t believe you on a national scale but I don’t believe you for California
