LOL. they do it for the Chinese.

Let's all go in together and buy a farm and start farming lead.

Did so in Yellowstone.

As much as we complain about it, the high property taxes in Texas discourage this activity, especially as it appreciates in value.

even with high property taxes, still worth it in a hot market. absolutely has had an effect in Texas. it sucks.

So what would you propose?

Could probably do something with the tax codes, create disincentives, but it's not a fix and these investments firms have very deep pockets.

Quote:

---

Should corporations be allowed to buy up huge swaths of real estate?

---

No, not residential.

FAT SEXY said:

---

I know we don't like Gov regulations.. and I don't see a real fix to this.

It's amoral that these bastages are doing this. Buying it up and sitting on it, jacking up the prices of everything.

---

You realize that the former property owners aren't forced to sell, right?

No. BlackRock has no business buying all the land in the US and forcing us to rent. This is an assault on the US Citizen. Muh capitalism needs to be regulated.

NoahAg said:

---

FAT SEXY said:

---

I know we don't like Gov regulations.. and I don't see a real fix to this.

It's amoral that these bastages are doing this. Buying it up and sitting on it, jacking up the prices of everything.

---

You realize that the former property owners aren't forced to sell, right?

---

and they shouldn't.

Don't complain about Californians moving in when you sold them your house.

Good point.

Pookers said:

---

No. BlackRock has no business buying all the land in the US and forcing us to rent. This is an assault on the US Citizen. Muh Corporatism needs to be regulated.

---

FIFY

TravelAg2004 said:

---

So what would you propose?

---

We already discourage it through the use of the homestead reduction in property taxes. Significantly raising property taxes on non-homesteaded real estate would discourage it even more. I'm not one to think the government is the answer to all problems, but taxation is an inevitable government function so I'm not adverse to more regulation in this area.

hunter2012 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

No. BlackRock has no business buying all the land in the US and forcing us to rent. This is an assault on the US Citizen. Muh Corporatism needs to be regulated.

---

FIFY

---

Fair enough, Whatever phrase is relevant, a bunch of trillionaire hedge funds should not be buying the US out from under our feet. I have no allegiance to central bankers and their hedge fund lackies.

Can you give some examples of these huge swaths of real estate and lack of available real estate because of it? What do you consider huge? Sounds kind of like a "fair share" prophecy to me.

1939 said:

---

Can you give some examples of these huge swaths of real estate and lack of available real estate because of it? What do you consider huge? Sounds kind of like a "fair share" prophecy to me.

---

Do you live under a rock? BlackRock is actively snatching up real estate at often 10-20% above asking price nation wide.

FAT SEXY said:

---

I know we don't like Gov regulations.. and I don't see a real fix to this.

It's amoral that these bastages are doing this. Buying it up and sitting on it, jacking up the prices of everything.

---

You're asking the wrong question.

Why shouldn't corporations (of any size) be able to buy real estate?

The trend that worries me is that builders are now building these big residential subdivisions and then selling the subdivision as a whole to big corporations to use a rental property. The builders love it b/c it's so easy for them as compared to selling the houses piecemeal.

If the trend continues to grow, then it will be very difficult for our children or our grandchildren to one day own their own home.

bangobango said:

---

The trend that worries me is that companies are now building these big subdivisions and then selling them to big corporations to use a rental property. It's a win win for the builders.

If the trend continues to grow, then it will be very difficult for our children or our grandchildren to one day own their own home.

---

Dramatically increasing the housing supply would put a stop to that.

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.

The economy exists to serve the people and more specifically the family. NOT the other way around.

Pookers said:

---

No. BlackRock has no business buying all the land in the US and forcing us to rent. This is an assault on the US Citizen. Muh capitalism needs to be regulated.

---

This. How do you think they intend to implement the first half of "you'll own nothing and be happy"?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.

The economy exists to serve the people and more specifically the family. NOT the other way around.

---

No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion.

bangobango said:

---

The trend that worries me is that builders are now building these big residential subdivisions and then selling the subdivision as a whole to big corporations to use a rental property. The builders love it b/c it's so easy for them as compared to selling the houses piecemeal.

If the trend continues to grow, then it will be very difficult for our children or our grandchildren to one day own their own home.

---

This is what a bunch of boomers sitting in their $500-750k house seem to not be concerned about. Trillion dollar corporate entities should not be able to buy out the very land we live on and then rent it to us. Real estate is one of the only methods for building wealth for a lot of people. The capitalism purists seem to love those who enslave them for no reason.

Nothing wrong with 20 people pooling their money and buying some land.

But if they ask for the Government for an "Inc", that's just plain amoral.

Going to be a lot of ranchers out there not happy when this plant only let individuals on property comes to fruition.

pagerman @ work said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.

The economy exists to serve the people and more specifically the family. NOT the other way around.

---

No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion.

---

How so? Is the purpose of life to add digits to the GDP? Are we nothing more than economic production and consumption units?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Nothing wrong with 20 people pooling their money and buying some land.

But if they ask for the Government for an "Inc", that's just plain amoral.

Going to be a lot of ranchers out there not happy when this plant only let individuals on property comes to fruition.

---

So what should be done about BlackRock? Just ignore it and hope they are kind to us in the future?

If you own enough of the liquid supply, you can manipulate how much goes to market and therefore market prices. If you can keep available supply at a certain level versus population and economic growth, you can really push up the price. You don't have to own that much, just a big enough portion of what is available to sell in certain markets to manipulate. It's really a rather clever option available only to a business big enough to engage in that level of massive buying with some degree of efficiency and ability to absorb the short term transaction costs.

Increase the supply of housing to a point where the returns aren't desirable, and they'll go somewhere else.

It seems lost on many that the reason (insert fund manager here) is purchasing this comes back to the consumer. The consumer demands a way to purchase real estate in their 401k, annuity, brokerage account etc. without the hassle of actually buying real estate. The (insert fund manager here) wants some of that business, so they create a fund. They then have a fiduciary duty to purchase real estate in a way that creates shareholder value.

Should the gas station be allowed to sell us bags of ice for $4/10lbs? Should corn be used to brew Bud Light?

If we didn't buy it, they wouldn't offer it.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.

The economy exists to serve the people and more specifically the family. NOT the other way around.

---

No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion.

---

How so? Is the purpose of life to add digits to the GDP? Are we nothing more than economic production and consumption units?

---

You can figure out your own "purpose of life". That has nothing to do with this discussion.

The economy exists because people need to trade goods and services to conduct their lives.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Increase the supply of housing to a point where the returns aren't desirable, and they'll go somewhere else.

---

You're operating under the assumption that the powers that be are simply motivated by money and not by control.

You mean like all the high rises, strip centers and office parks located throughout the US?

pagerman @ work said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.

The economy exists to serve the people and more specifically the family. NOT the other way around.

---

No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion.

---

How so? Is the purpose of life to add digits to the GDP? Are we nothing more than economic production and consumption units?

---

You can figure out your own "purpose of life". That has nothing to do with this discussion.

The economy exists because people need to trade goods and services to conduct their lives.

---

Right. But should the economy be ordered to the benefit of the people or should the people conform to the demands of an economic leviathan?