LogFAQs > #966663215

streamofthesky posted...

Those "homestead taxes" would stay. Institutional investors wouldn't just jump in to buy things up like other housing crashes -- they'd be the ones causing the crash as they desperately flee their investments that are about to turn into debt traps, trying not to be the last one out the door. If holding a property is gonna cost them 20% (for example) per year in additional taxes, it's no longer attractive as an "investment", which is entirely the point...

It'd have to be enough tax to make it impossible to fill the rental and still turn a profit, otherwise they'll just pass it on to the tenants and the renting situation will get worse for everyone, and that's quite a bit. Even then, if property values crash because everyone's selling, that in turn lowers the property taxes such that owning a rental becomes more viable, so those that already have the capital to buy are still going to be more likely to snap them up than people that are currently stuck renting. A crash like that would get a few renters who have almost made it to ownership out of the mire, but most won't be so lucky and will just end up at the mercy of whoever ends up buying the property after the price tanks (who will likely bulldoze and develop it, if that extra tax doesn't apply to apartment buildings).

streamofthesky posted...

Yes, and that's what apartments, multi-family homes, etc... can be for.

Apartments are rentals, and the other alternatives aren't always viable. There are stepping stones that can work better than renting, but there will always need to be some degree of rental market to bridge the gap between moving out and owning a home.

streamofthesky posted...

There's already security deposits for this purpose. They withhold it until they verify the property and deduct expenses from it. If anything, the law is too generous for the landlords.

That idea would replace security deposits. If your damage costs are guaranteed to be reimbursed, after all, there's no need for a deposit, which in turn means no opportunities for scummy landlords to withhold the deposit without justification, and on the flip side, no need for landlords to increase rent for other tenants if a bad one causes more damage than their deposit covers (which happens fairly often, and chasing them down for the extra money is generally more hassle than it's worth, which is why everyone else's rent has to make up the difference).

Pets still might be a sticking point, though, since one of the main ways they can rack up extra costs is by leaving bad smells behind, and that wouldn't show up in a video walkthrough. That's kind of hard to solve without having a third-party arbitrator come in before the lease ends to verify the smell complaints, which costs extra money that would have to come from somewhere (though, again, having that cost defrayed among all taxpayers instead of being covered by what's left over from pet deposits that don't get used is generally a better idea), but it's not impossible to solve.