There’s a shortage of affordable homes because investors are buying them all up. That leaves people stuck in apartments/condos. Not acceptable.
15 Likes
If I own a house that an investor wishes to pay a higher price for then an individual why would I as the home owner be subject to a loss? A law as such would run afoul of the taking clause. What is needed done is a sound money policy from the Federal Government and a loosening of land use laws.
3 Likes
I posted a proposal almost a year ago.
2 Likes
No, it wouldn’t run afoul of the “takings” clause. How did you come up with that?
“Investment houses” should NOT be able to compete against citizens for residential property, PERIOD, IMO.
That said, this is not the primary issue here.
The PRIMARY issue is regulation/legislation instituted by democrats, un agenda 21 (30, 50, and “sustainable development goals”), and the subsequent local BOS, ICLEI, ABAG (look it up if you don’t know), that (all but) prevents building single family homes in favor of high density housing and “smart cities.”
Patrick, if you really don’t care about this yet, it might be ideal for you to consider the end result (which is what “they” want); a society of renters, with ever increasing costs. As I said, that is what they want.
2 Likes
Get rid of the over reach of the national Realtor association. They are the cause of home prices being higher as they charge their Realtors, A Heavy annual fee, Why? and Do you know who is behind this Nefarious group? Things to look up for Home work , also look up home price gauging before and after National Realtor Association came to be.
In the township north of me the zoning board is trying to rezone commercial property to residential. If they were to do this the commercial property would loose some of its value. The township would be liable for any loss. Amendment Five of the Constitution reads at the end, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation, The loss of the perceived higher cost an investor would pay can not be put on a seller of the property without the government paying for the loss of income. The proper solution is opening up zoning laws to provide more houses.
I don’t know where you are located, but an analysis would need to be done to determine whether or not rezoning would affect commercial space value, and that would need to include the different categories of commercial zoning. I think it would likely increase the value of nearby commercial property.
Whether it did or not, it would not bump up against the “takings clause.”
In case you are saying that owners of commercial property that was to be rezoned would lose money, I think you are absolutely incorrect. I know several owners of property zoned for commercial that they have been actively trying to get rezoned to residential, but the county won’t allow it unless it is exclusively turned into mass high density housing.
Lastly, we aren’t talking about private property being taken for public use. and it is MUCH more than just zoning law, it is the hyper-overregulation of…basically everything, but specifically energy & water, and the exorbitant fees and requirements a developer must pay/adhere to before they ever break ground.
the changing of the policy is public use. Not saying rezoning or your wish to deprive someone of additional income can’t be done its just that the government is going to have to pay the difference. The best way is to flood the market with new houses. The Wish to stop someone from selling their house at a higher price could very well keep additional inventory off the market as well as causing builders to not wish to develop new projects on the margin. Consider , you have a car. You want to get rid of it and upgrade to something more useful to your needs. Your neighbor hears that you want to sell the car. He offers you $9,000.00 for the car. The dealer offers you $12,00 on trade. Should there be a law that forces you to sell the car to your neighbor because someone thinks your neighbor should have it instead of the dealer.
Patrick, I truly hope you do some studying and try to critically think through just what you’re saying.
Nothing I said implies that I “wish to prevent someone from selling their home for a higher price.”
Neither your analogy or attempt to conflate completely different things are relevant in this discussion.
This is the last time I’ll respond to you, BTW, as you clearly do not understand the issue, and seem unable to think beyond the tip of your nose. I wish you the best.
The answer is to do away with restrictive zoning rules thereby increasing the amount of housing. This includes regulations that raise the price of a house in order to comply with green new deal regulations and sustainable development goals such as proposed by agenda 21, 30 and 50. One should be very wary of the heavy hand of government. To deprive any group of people from owning a property is no different then the red line districts of the 70’s
I talked to a nationally known Constitutional Attorney last week that has won thirteen out of fourteen cases in front of the Supreme Court He agrees that my point is correct about the takings clause