• JonEFive
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A significant problem isn’t just the lack of housing, it’s the lack of affordable housing. Builders keep building single family homes in spread out suburbs which is problematic in its own way. But not everyone could afford those homes regardless of whether they are buying or renting.

    Investors owning single family homes is a big problem, the bigger problem is exacerbated but not explicitly caused by that. Affordable housing simply isn’t available in places where it’s needed. That’s why people say we need more homes.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not just single family homes. They could be building starter single family homes, but those are cheap. They could be focusing on middle class family single family homes, but those aren’t as profitable as the luxury housing. They focus on luxury housing both in single family suburbs, and when they build apartment buildings in the cities.

      According to the home builders, if you aren’t rich, they won’t build you a home.

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The funny thing about empty yet “unaffordable” housing is that if the market actually works correctly it gets lowered in price until a buyer is found.

      • JonEFive
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You would think so. But the reality is that large companies would often rather let a property sit empty than devalue it by accepting a lower amount. And when they control enough of the market that there’s no good competition, it breaks the whole “free market” thing.

        You or I would be hurting (I presume) if we owned a property and weren’t living in and weren’t making any money off of it. These holding companies just see a line on a spreadsheet under the “assets” column.