aust.in.side.voices.please

Every once in a while it's good to find yourself on the 20 side of an 80/20 issue.

This is a thing that is within their control and they absolutely should make their negotiating position

And this is absolutely why we're seeing an astroturfed effort to create a schism over his religiosity within the online left.

FWIW the amendment this article is complaining about is a requirement that investors who build "build-to-rent" homes sell them to individual homeowners within 7 years. The investors don't want to have to do that. They want to be allowed to only rent out the homes they build forever.

bsky.app/profile/abw5...

To make a case they'd need to argue that they're meeting a need the market wouldn't meet otherwise. And, so far, is anyone making that case?

All things considered, it's probably good to put a reasonable curb on investor interest in a new class of assets. "Hey, you can invest, but not too big and for not without an expiration date" feels fair.

The howlers and complainers need to do more than to just threaten "well then we won't build."

"Congrats, we have tons of single-family homes, but you can't buy them because the institutional investor class needs its sweet, sweet ROI" isn't actually a solution to the housing crisis. Homes available for ownership will only become more expensive as they make up a smaller slice of the pie.

And, I'm sorry, but that should be a worrying signal for everyone, even us YIMBYs. Because if institutional investors are pouring money into projects with the *express purpose* of them being "never-own, forever-rent" in perpetuity then we're going to wind up with a housing market we *don't* want.

However, even in this article it shares a clear warning sign:

"In the past several years, new single-family subdivisions purpose-built as rental housing have gone from a rounding error of the new home market to comprising anywhere from 3 percent to 10 percent of new home production."

Like I'm pro-development and I currently rent. I selfishly want more housing stock in the country! I also know that corporate ownership is *not* the reason why people are struggling to buy homes.

This is the core of the complaint. Can someone explain how this is unreasonable?

"This new section would prohibit investors who own more than 350 SFHs from acquiring new ones. Investors would also have to sell off new build-to-rent housing within a period of seven years to individual homeowners."

Not to give him too much credit...it's clear the man is sundowning in front of our eyes...but if I were old, evil, and afraid of being usurped by any of my toadies I might make them wear too-big-shoes, too. Just to show everyone who might support them how weak and insecure they really are.

That's part and parcel of their weakness here. Only a specialized audience reads their opinions, but a very general audience lives through the repercussions: citizens united, overturning roe v wade, kavenaugh stops, etc with no real effort made to explain or justify why.

Jim Cramer suggests on CNBC that Trump could “bomb Tehran into the Stone Age” until Iran reopens the strait, citing U.S. bombings of North Vietnam in the 1970s. Carl Quintanilla points out to him that Hanoi won that war.

Yeah he's definitely playing with fire. He's not taking pot-shot from a safe district. He's antagonizing his own electorate, yet somehow thinks there won't be any consequences.

Torsten at Apollo: With margin debt at record highs, any downturn in stocks risks turning into a sharper correction as leveraged investors are forced to sell into falling markets

they didn’t even think they had to sell it and if that isn’t a scathing condemnation of our media I don’t know what is

Ok, this is interesting...

If you thought China was selling a lot of batteries and solar panels before, you’re going to love what happens next.

Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day for global markets.

One of the biggest problems with this website is that every bad idea becomes "ugh, the democrats again" even if 90% don't support it.

It's vulturous behavior, with individuals building "brands" off of taking easy pot-shots at a target that we should probably stop shooting all the damn time.

Mark Kelly and Richard Blumenthal are behind this.

Let them own this, unless or until the caucus as a whole gets behind it (which most will not, thank god).

a man in a suit and tie is sitting in a chair in front of a window Alt: A man in a suit and tie. He pulls out a business card and slides it across a conference table. (Scene from American Psycho)

An entire generation of Republican men raised in a protected hot house, anxious to prove their masculinity to each other, in the most dweeby asinine ways imaginable.

I cannot be the only person to watch this and get massive Patrick Bateman vibes.

remember when MattyY was talking about how dems shouldn't talk about immigration

If you are the parent of or spend time with teens (especially young men) then take them to see this documentary when it comes out. Everywhere they go they're being told cryptocurrencies are cool and rebellious, when they're actually just rigged casino games. They need the truth.

Yes. "They're not scared that Mamdani will be a bad major, they're scared he's gonna be a good mayor"

well, we know which side of the oil-to-the-moon trade the WSJ editorial board is on now. so there's that.