02-15-2023, 10:48 PM
It's an interesting statistic, and it does say something, but the general conclusion that it's responsible for the housing crisis just doesn't make sense. Speculation is a symptom of the crisis, IMO.
The condos were built, and now house people, so the argument holds true.
I don't think you are thinking from their perspective. If they won't drop their rents to match the market, they will have an empty unit and be significantly more cashflow negative. They can either rent at a slightly lower price and bet on their "asset" to appreciate a greater amount in the long run, or if lower rents means a lower sale price then they can cut their losses and sell.
I understand his concern about the lowest income earners, but what is his point here? I don't really want to get into some equity argument here about how he thinks things should be... But these buildings wouldn't be built without investors, simple as. How is less housing, where the current condo occupants are instead competing for the existing housing stock, better for those at the bottom?
(02-15-2023, 08:39 PM)nms Wrote: The argument is often made that condos need to be built to house more people.
The condos were built, and now house people, so the argument holds true.
(02-15-2023, 08:39 PM)nms Wrote: Needless to say, investors who need to cover their mortgage costs are less likely to lower rent
I don't think you are thinking from their perspective. If they won't drop their rents to match the market, they will have an empty unit and be significantly more cashflow negative. They can either rent at a slightly lower price and bet on their "asset" to appreciate a greater amount in the long run, or if lower rents means a lower sale price then they can cut their losses and sell.
Quote:“We don’t see a whole lot of units that are actually affordable as rental units to people on low and very low incomes, so we don’t see a lot of people on minimum wage, or living wages in the new buildings where three-quarters of the units are owned by investors,” he said.
I understand his concern about the lowest income earners, but what is his point here? I don't really want to get into some equity argument here about how he thinks things should be... But these buildings wouldn't be built without investors, simple as. How is less housing, where the current condo occupants are instead competing for the existing housing stock, better for those at the bottom?