upvote
The fact that the number of houses owned by large corporations is so low as to be insignificant shows that it’s basically 0% of the cause. (I’m assuming you’re not against a landlord who owns a small number of properties forming an LLC, but mean companies that rent lots of properties.)

It is a supply issue caused by local building codes and zoning. Full stop. Everything else is just pretending to do something about the problem, and corporations are just scapegoats.

reply
> It is a supply issue caused by local building codes and zoning. Full stop.

But RealPage isn't a supply issue? It's easy to price gouge consumers because housing is inelastic. And the fine they got is a slap on the wrist!

Price gouging is more widespread than one isolated price fixing case. It's easy to achieve in an inelastic market. As one example, moving costs money so rentiers can raise rents as long as there is a switching cost to moving. Deregulation doesn't address the fundamental inelasticity of the housing market.

Your comment also seems to be oblivious to the role that interest rates play. Mortgages are not corporate-owned in the sense of the parent comment, but mortgages are a cash flow from home owners to corporate financiers - a cash flow from the working class to the wealthy. ZIRP led to high prices; with rising rates, homeowners are incentivized to hold on to their properties rather than move. These are issues of macroeconomic finance and wealth disparity, not "building codes and zoning".

While you're right that the parent's comment of corporate ownership of houses is off base, multi-family housing is majority corporate owned. Multi-family housing is a huge portion of the housing market, particularly in cities where prices are highest. Corporations aren't "just scapegoats" here either - they are parasitizing cash flow from workers here as well. Corporate profits is where the money in high housing prices ultimately goes.

There is a reason billionaires astroturf YIMBYism. It's precisely because it doesn't threaten their class interests.

reply
You have over-simplified "ownership" into a thing that doesn't exist. Most Americans "own" their house in a complicated relationship between themselves, individually or jointly or as a family trust, and one of several monstrous global financial firms, each of which holds part of the interest.
reply
It would dramatically reduce the availability of rental properties. So, if you really hate renters, it’s a good thing I guess.

Extremely low chance that I’m going to put my entire net worth on the line to own and rent out housing in my own name.

Exactly zero chance that I’ll do it in a multi-family or apartment building.

Holding these things in corporate title is sensible risk management and compartmentalization.

reply
AIUI LLCs for rental properties have very little protective power in court, and are easily shredded by plaintiffs' attorneys. If you thought that you were getting some degree of legal protection from holding your small multifamily in an LLC- you're probably not.

For example- do you have a mortgage? Almost certainly in your name, you have to be very large to receive a mortgage as a corporation. If you're holding a property in an LLC but the mortgage in your name, that's classic piercing the corporate veil and will take an attorney about 10 minutes to shred that in court

reply