1072

submitted 6 days ago by A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

141 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] protist@retrofed.com 12 points 6 days ago

Institutional investors have tended to cluster their purchases, resulting in more concentrated investments in certain neighborhoods in a handful of markets, including Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Charlotte, and Tampa. The 2024 GAO report found that they own 25% of single-family rental homes in Atlanta and 21% of those in Jacksonville. Researchers have found that mega landlords may have contributed to the rise in housing costs, particularly in areas where they're heavily concentrated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ban-wall-street-buying-houses-not-solution-home-prices-2026-1

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The best proof you can come up with is that mega landlords "may have contributed?" It can't even state it definitively or quantify how much?

Forgive me if I'm not persuaded.

Meanwhile, I actually live in one of the cities you mentioned, so let me give you some real perspective: even if we assumed that every single one of the 25% of homes owned by institutional investors were being kept vacant for some stupid reason -- which, to be clear, they are not -- transferring ownership to owner-occupants would only increase the amount of housing available by 33%. In contrast, even just the relatively minor reform of allowing ADUs on all single-family properties would increase it by up to 100%. Rezoning the R1 properties (rich people's mansions on minimum 2-acre lots) to R4 ("normal" middle-class housing on minimum 9000 sq. ft. lots) would increase it by up to 900% in those formerly R1 areas. And those two zoning changes still remain single-family! If we actually abolished it, we're talking about thousands of percent increases.

So having read that, which idea do you think actually would have a bigger effect: abolishing institutional real estate investors or zoning reform?

[-] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 6 days ago

There isn't a single person here saying that zoning laws don't need to be changed. The only person here with their undies in a bunch is you, who just can't seem to accept the fact that ending corporate ownership of single family homes would increase the housing supply and reduce prices. "But it doesn't do it as much as this other thing!!" Wtf dude what are you even arguing for

this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026

1072 points (100.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

2405 readers

806 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules

If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com