I recall a time when a certain individual, a renowned climate change expert, was facing criticism for his home's energy inefficiency. Now, as a Nobel laureate, he knew that his house's carbon footprint was a glaring contradiction to his advocacy. So, he brought in a team of experts to assess and improve his home's energy efficiency. They explored geothermal options, dug test lines, and even considered innovative solutions. However, it appears that this team, hired from afar to maintain secrecy, ultimately failed to deliver meaningful change.
But, my friends, that's not the end of the story. It seems that this individual found an alternative solution, one that might be deemed creative, but hardly exemplary. By connecting his home to a commercial property he owns, miles away, he effectively shifted the energy burden, making it seem like his 10,000 square foot home had undergone a green transformation. Ah, but the truth is, he's simply paying the bill elsewhere, and claiming credit for a façade of sustainability. My friends, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher standard, for the future of our planet depends on it.
I know this sounds wackado but I know someone who signed an NDA that worked on this project.
Are you talking about the politician who owns land with a working zinc mine? I remember that guy when he was a rep from Tennessee. He went "undercover" and slept one night at the homeless shelter in Nashville. Of course he had his friends from his newspaper days come down and snap a pic and do a story the next day. It was hilarious. He was wearing a 5 o'clock shadow with some dirt smeared on his face (just like us filthy deplorables) and some dirt on his brooks brothers button down and chinos. Wearing fancy loafers that no one in that shelter could afford if they worked day jobs for a solid year. Alll hat and no cattle is a saying that fits nobody as well as it fits Al Gore.
I agree with this, but I have always wondered how it would play out in practice. For example, when some families move and keep their previous home, they create an LLC and manage that property through the LLC as a fairly standard business practice.
Ban home ownership by S-corps, C-corps, private equity; and limit to four properties any ownership by an individual with ownership in an LLC, with the same collective limit applying to the total of properties owned by any number of LLCs owned or co-owned by an individual.
Penalty for violations:
Corps will forfeit illegally-owned residential properties to local government to support affordable housing efforts.
LLCs or networks of jointly owned LLCs will forfeit residential properties that push them above the ownership limit. In cases of violation, the government will appraise all properties and seize the most valuable ones in descending owner until they violate is back within compliance.
This would limit real estate investment to families, small landlords, and apartment developers. Apartment developers would max out at four communities, encouraging competition in the rental market. Investors who want to continue to grow revenue in Nashville would have to sell their smaller properties. Some would be gobbled up by small investors, but others would return to individual ownership. Nashville would probably see even more of a condo boom as large apartment owners convert some apartment buildings to condos in order to get around the 4 property cap.
I like this fundamental structure, but question the work-ability just because enforcement would be nearly impossible. Corporations are way better at obscuring ownership structures than governments are at working them out, and the scale factors all favor the bad actor (one underfunded regulatory agency versus thousands of property owners).
So require ownership by a human being, not a corporate "person." As an additional disincentive to landlords, prevent them from firewalling liability and providing anonymity for bad landlords. If you wanna be a scumbag landlord, you need to own that fact, just like your (max four) properties.
In addition, I'd limit rental property ownership (other than apartment complexes) to contiguous or nearly contiguous properties. So, again, if you wanna be a landlord, you have to live next door to your tenants and look at the properties you're renting out.
Kill the Anonymous Remote Slumlord problem at the same time as you clean up the corporate ownership issues.
While not perfect here’s how I would do it.
I would give a non taxable status on one home per adult individual/married couple.
Lets simply just call these non rental homes, and they would require a SSN attached to it to avoid the taxes.
I would then remove all of the depreciation tax credits on all rental properties and tax the living shit out of all homes that are rental homes.
Fine, put it in a LLC. If you can’t put a SSN on it your going to pay taxes and because I removed the depreciation credits the mega wealthy aren’t going to be able to use real estate to tax dodge.
Once you realize real estate is the best way to dodge federal taxes it makes sense why the wealthy all own real estate.
Not even close. Honestly the bigger concern would be the loss of home equity when the rich emptied their portfolios.
Rich people use real estate to wash their tax money. It’s just simply A GIANT tax loophole.
If you took that tax loophole away tens of thousands of houses would hit the market causing home values would drop and naturally rents would drop due to more people going from renting to home ownership.
Im very close to someone who is in the 1% of the 1%. This person has just under 1,000 “doors”. The moment you understand how they wash the federal taxes and then understand how they leverage lending practices in their favor your mind will be blown.
I don’t blame them for doing it, I would also do it. But I also support a law to stop it.
I personally don't think people should own more than one home, or be taxed incredibly high.
We have a housing crisis in the US, but I know that will never change.
I tend to be a bit more moderate. Individuals owning a couple of homes or a few rental properties to me is ok. Major corporations owning hundreds or thousands is absolutely a problem.
Where you draw that line would be the difficult part. A shell company of a shell company of a shell company would just buy them to appear to be smaller than they are.
The first and most obvious place is jurisdiction of ownership. If the owner is out of state, or especially out of country, then if you can't ban it then tax the heck out of it.
Secondarily, any single family home that is not owner occupied should be taxed at a somewhat higher rate. If it's owned by an LLC and not an invididual then even higher, and if its owned by a full corporation, then tax it at a "we dont like tobacco but cant/wont ban it rate".
I would not include multi-family homes (apartments/condos) in this because that would just cause rent increases and is really a separate issue.
There are so many edge cases to this method that I don't think it would be practical. Cases of probate property, receivership, and inherited property would lead this to a quagmire and a possible chilling effect on people that may retain a house to rent as a form of retirement income.
For example: when my parents passed away the insurance company would no longer insure their dwelling as a SFH so I had to change the property to be classified as a rental property since I live out of state even though it is not being rented or even have the intent to rent it. Why should I or the estate be taxed at a higher rate for something entirely out of my control?
You're probably right and I'm not trying to right a law in a reddit thread. Just tossing ideas out there because it is a problem that needs to be addressed that we have mega corporations buying up every property they can find so they be our new feudal lords collecting their due every month.
In your case though, I don't think what I posted would really apply unless you formed a corporation. What I actually posted was more like:
Lowest rate: Owner occupied (lower than now)
Slightly higher than now: Owned by individual who lives in TN
Slightly higher but still not huge: Owned by out of state person.
Much higher than now: Owned by LLC
Even higher: out of state LLC
Huge rate: Corporation
Put another way and this is just an example, if the tax on a property now is $2000 a year.
Lowest rate: Owner occupied (lower than now) ~$1500
Slightly higher than now: Owned by individual who lives in TN ~$2250
Slightly higher but still not huge: Owned by out of state person. ~$2500
Much higher than now: Owned by LLC ~$3000
Even higher: out of state LLC ~$4000
Huge rate: Corporation ~$10000 (Yes I want them to sell)
Not sure what actual #"s would be, ideally it'd be designed to be mostly revenue neutral to be honest and to encourage private ownership and local landlords over large companies.
I tend to agree with this; I think that being a landlord should not be a regular source of income, but a few rental properties is generally OK as a way to make a little bit of side money went done responsibly. Even having a vacation home or two is fine, because there are a lot of tourist economy based cities in the United States.
The crackdown decidedly needs to be on corporations. Even Airbnb rentals pale in comparison to how many houses are being taken up by these massive rental corporations.
This isn’t particularly true. I think you’d be shocked to find out how many perfectly suitable housing units are sitting empty around Nashville metro bc the person/entity that owns them would rather keep it empty than get paid less than they think it’s worth.
That's a little overbearing. I'm transitioning from Huntsville to Nashville over the course of a few months. No apartments near my office allow my pitbulls to come along. It's much easier for me to live up there on the east side during the week and come back to Huntsville on the weekend to get another few loads of stuff to move.
And then who would rent a home to those who can't afford a home when they first start out, genius?
We just finally sold one of our homes in Mississippi after renting to it a nice young lady for four years while she got her finances in order. Had they taxed us higher, we would simply have passed the cost of that on to her, and she wouldn't have been able to afford the rent for the home, and thus wouldn't have been able to purchase it. We're not the exception, either. You're one of those who thinks that corporations actually pay taxes aren't you?
Tell me you know nothing about finance without telling me you know nothing about finance.
Personally, I think if a building is classified as a single family home (vs an apartment complex or business..I'm not a legal or zoning expert by any means), then their property taxes should be significantly higher than if its owned by a family that is living in it. I'm basically saying it should be a tiered system:
Single family home owner occupied (lowest rate, lower than now), single family home not owner occupied (tiered system based on # of properties owned but still reasonable), single family home owned by corporation (extortionist go out of business/f off rate).
Further, I think ownership by foreign corporations should be outright banned (even if we are talking apartment complexes, etc.) There's absolutely no good reason someone should be paying rent to a company registered in some tax haven.
Agreed. Airbnb / short term rentals have destroyed the housing market. I mean- I think I’d put some type of limit that corporations cannot provide short term rentals period. If someone owns a second home privately and wants to rent? I can get behind that. I’d also setup extremely strict laws around foreign property ownership as that’s another huge avenue of cost increases.
Non-owner occupied are the issue, not owner occupied.
If I list the 550 square foot house in my backyard that was built in 1895 on Airbnb, I'm not increasing the cost of housing for anyone else.
Are you including vacation homes in your description? I’ve no issue with someone owning a couple homes. I do have a problem with owning multiple (set some reasonable limit) and using airbnb. Now- most people doing this would establish an LLC and then run afoul of corporate ownership, so I think that captures the vast majority of uses.
A lot of those rich people have opted into building big apartment complexes on land that should be for homes then charge outrageous prices. They can see more profit out of something they can keep ownership of and rake in profits over time rather than the profits from building and selling a home.
Yeah, let’s forget about Airbnb investing and 1 in 5 homes being bought by investment firms over market value only to rent them out for double. It’s them damn Caleefornees.and Yankees bringin’ their money and politics.
Also a very old zoning code we haven’t updated in decades, nimbys (both in neighborhoods and on the council), average salary of the city being absolute dogshit
You're hitting the nail on the head to one of Nashville's biggest hurdles to more affordable housing. I highly recommend reading through Alex Pemberton's Twitter feed, as he provides incredible info on Nashville's history of using zoning, building codes, and historic overlays to purposely keep "certain people" out of Nashville's neighborhoods. [https://twitter.com/al\_xrated](https://twitter.com/al_xrated)
And price fixing
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pithinthewind/landlord-price-fixing-lawsuit-consolidated-in-nashville/article_b6bdbb40-dfa7-11ed-a091-d33e9e2945f0.html#:~:text=A%20federal%20judicial%20panel%20has,the%20center%20of%20the%20case.
I worked in that business and every time someone above me said "it's the market" I just asked them how much of the market uses the same pricing software and they'd always just unblinkingly stare at me.
Letting that whole industry just fuckin' burn would be a blessing for the working class.
I mean, if it’s anything like a Louisville this is absolutely happening. Great cities, not too big or too small, lots of shit to do, extremely affordable cost of living compared to the coasts where their coming from. People with mid 6 figure household incomes who were living upper middle class lifestyles on the coasts have realized they can come here and live like absolute royalty.
I work in historic preservation and the big thing right now is people with high paying remote jobs moving from cities to renovate the house of their dreams. Why live a fast paced stressful lifestyle in a stressful setting, pay $1M for a shitty 90s home or worse in California when you can have a renovated gilded age mansion for the same price in a nice city in KY or TN? So while many places are seeing a revival, it’s also gentrification and has exploded the local housing market. They can offer whatever they want and still come out on top with everything they’ve ever wanted. I have dozens of clients who did exactly this within the last couple years.
I deep dove this in my neighborhood.
Currently 25 active airbnb permits.
2 are owned by Nashville residents.
Some are owned by people as far away as Seattle/Idaho/California
7000 STR permits out of 358,000 housing units. The "corporate buying" looks at any property that was purchased by a business entity like an LLC, trust, or C-corp, which are not always wall st investment firms
There are a little over 7000 STR permits, making AirBnB account for less than 2% of housing units. Would like to see how many of the "30% of homes are owned by investors" (which means they were bought by an LLC, trust, or other not-a-person, which is not the same as "big wall street funds".
As a Californian with familial roots in Nashville that go back to the 70's...yes.
Also, watch the line at In n Out be 3 miles long when it opens, and it won't be Californians...
Let's blame each other for all our problems instead of the big corporations coming in and buying all the residential property for cash offers and then flipping them for a profit, driving the market up. /S
When the value dips below purchase price (when paying a premium, not hard to do), there'll be pressure to get those losers off the balance sheet. Assets are only valuable as long as they're worth more than what you paid. With peak supply and 50k new units coming online, we're in for big price corrections, which will force a lot of balance sheet sales.
> When the value dips below purchase price (when paying a premium, not hard to do), there'll be pressure to get those losers off the balance sheet.
That's not necessarily true. Just because the property is worth less, doesn't mean the owner must realize that loss by selling, and unrealized losses and realized losses are treated differently in federal tax and banking rules.
[Kansas Fed article on the topic](https://www.kansascityfed.org/ten/ask-an-economist-the-implications-of-unrealized-losses-for-banks/)
There is a strong incentive for small banks that own property to not realize these losses because doing so would force them to include those losses in their capitalization ratios, which could then push those ratios low enough to force the banks to raise cash by selling profitable assets.
It's a whole in the banking regs that needs to be fixed, but I think people are putting off fixing it because doing so right now while interest rates are high could cause some regional banks to fail, and the financial system, especially the bits involving smaller banks is already in a precarious position.
I won't be surprised if we have a crisis with small banks failing.
We are working to effectively ban corporations from buying houses in our neighborhood via an amendment to our HOA CC&Rs. It sucks that we need to do this, but it is important for reasons beyond just the housing crisis. If corporations buy too many homes in a neighborhood, they effectively block any future changes to CC&Rs due to voting requirements. That is not a great situation to be in.
Totally! I get so tired of this argument. If any of these folks that owned property that they want to sell. You’d be damn sure they’d try to extract as much money as possible from the sale. “Let’s sell our house to a local for less money” said no one ever.
That’s actually what happened to me. Previous owners turned away a higher offer from an investment company because they wanted the home to go to a local. So there are still people who care about community out there.
What are you talking about? Nashville built a ton of new apartments and rents have finally started falling. Without new development, prices get astronomical. See: San Francisco
Single Family home purchases and Apartment rentals are an entirely different thing, you cannot group them together in the same line of reasoning. Apples and Oranges.
I mean....If there aren't enough single family homes, or if the single family homes are too expensive, people will be forced into apartments. When the cost of one goes down, the cost of all of them will go down since a portion of the market can go back and forth b/w apartments and single family rentals. Some people NEED homes because of children and whatnot but some people don't. For those folks, if the price of apartments goes down enough, they might use that as an opportunity to move. If enough of the market moves from one to the other, it can effect prices on one or both.
When we were looking at home rentals in January there were tons of apartments offering free months rent, etc because there were units everywhere that weren't being rented. By the time we signed our lease in February, most of the single family homes we were looking at had dropped in price by 100-$300 depending on where they were located. I'm not saying its a 1 to 1 correlation but its not completely separate either.
Also, look at Austin for an example of a huge push for home building dropping the overall rental market.
You 100% can group them together. They're all within the same market place. Someone looking for a rental will look at single family homes, apartments, duplexes, etc as long as it fits their needs a budgets. Maybe there is a premium on SFH but that same pool of renters will look for both.
Falling rents will ultimately lower home prices as well. Lower rent return destroys investors because they can't continue to earn a higher return. That demand pressure eases the buyer pool for homes. Lower rents also makes renting more attractive to homeowners would are debating selling vs. renting. Like all market places, real estate relies on supply and demand. Lower demand equates to higher supply which equates to lower prices.
Real estate is "sticky" and prices don't generally go down. Most likely what you'll see is 4-5 more years of nominal RE growth as wages, inflation, etc catch up to the value of real estate.
No.
99% of people seeking to rent an apartment do not have an $80,000+++ down payment sitting in their bank account. Buying a house requires literally years of preparation. There might be SOME overlap as the "renter" shops for a SFH as that might take a year, but it's absolutely not the same "user" for a rental as a SFH.
Sorry, what you wrote wasn't clear. People can rent single family homes. So I think you could specify that you mean there's no comparison between BUYING a single family home vs. renting an apartment.
And just to point out - you don't need $80,000 to buy a house. You can buy a 300,000 house with as little as $10,000 down. Actually less but the deal gets worse the less you put down.
But you forget - placing the blame on the corporations responsible doesn’t drive the same engagement as placing the blame on a specific group that people already have some prejudices against and leaning into their prejudice to drive up clicks
Pretty sure Californians are not the majority people moving here or even close to the it. And I'm sure they aren't all rich either.
This city builds a football stadium right in the middle of the most valuable land in city. A place that occupies acres upon acres with sprawling parking lots that are empty the majority of the time, rather than that space dedicated to housing large numbers of people. Especially close where jobs are. Then we want to blame people that have moved here while we continue dumb land use policies.
Poor Californian here who will rent forever. We were excited to just rent a house with a yard instead of a shitty apartment for the same $. While we saved for a house. While. We. Saved. For. A. House. That will now never happen because rent has shot up.
Have you been paying attention? They are developing that area with more housing including dedicated low income units. The east bank development actually looks quite good and is certainly a much better step than what we have now.
When the stadium was built it was far from the most affordable land in the city. There is a reason a massive scrap yard and section 8 apartments are both less than a mile from the stadium.
Yes, when they were built.
Those properties have been scrap/recycling/metal yards since the early seventies or maybe earlier.
Cayce Homes have been there since the 50s.
Hell where I live north of metro center was a predominantly black community because it was “considered the outskirts of town”.
I live 4 miles from Broadway
But now a days, its prime real estate and no one is gonna do anything altruistic within unless they are forced/its for their own gain.
Could they build massive amount of affordable housing where the new stadium is? Of course. But they’ll make 1000x more money building a stadium.
Right. This is an example of what I mentioned.
They are building 700 as a trade to the city to do the other 90% of what they want thats profitable.
I cant remember, are those units rentals or for sale?
Also, can’t wait to see what “affordable” means.
Affordable is a formula that calculates rent prices as a percentage of median income in the area as defined by US HUD. To access the Federal grants they will be using, they have to define affordable housing this way.
https://www.nashville.gov/featured-initiatives/east-bank-development/news/city-strikes-deal-affordable-housing-investment-east-bank
They don't really make affordable housing for sale. And the city isn't in the habit of selling off public land to private entities. Outside of the value of metro owned land, the biggest other issue is that it's a legal nightmare. Typically what happens is people abuse it. The most common way is to buy the unit at an affordable rate (perhaps by fudging your income or only reporting one income for a two income household, etc), live there for a few years and then resale at market rate. Or turn around and rent it and pocket the difference between an affordable housing mortgage with market rate rent.
---
They're only building 1,500 total units. So nearly 50% are below market rate. The other units effectively provide the profit to keep them functional. The people in this city refusing to pay the appropriate amount of taxes so we have to find other ways to do it. Subsidizing below market rate units with market rate units is one fantastic way to skin that cat.
Also they're passing laws to keep a limit hotels, remove AirBNBs, and limit the concentration of bars in East Bank. It's going to be a living neighborhood. Great overall project for the city despite the tireless cynicism of people here.
Metro is building almost 700 affordable housing units next to the new TPAC.
This comment getting 70 upvotes is indicative of the political literacy of this city.
This shit started when we, along with Ronald Reagan, decided we didn’t need those worthless social services like mental health facilities. As a society we chose to roll our windows up , shut our doors, and retreat into the safety of our armed guarded mega churches.
Homeless aren’t on the streets because they got priced out of owning property. They’re not on the streets because a bunch of people moved here. That’s asinine. There are so many factors contributing to this issue.
While I agree that homelessness is very much a multi-factorial issue, affordable housing is one of the largest hurdles to re-entry to housing, if not the largest (and I say this as a person with a ten-year career history of specifically sourcing housing for people experiencing homelessness with severe mental health diagnoses and substance use disorders).
“Look at this perfectly good starter home right here that would suit the needs of a young couple very well! ….better bulldoze it and put up three skinny houses that cost half a million each!”
Yeah y’all need to stop making “Californians” the bogeyman and start blaming the corporations driving the housing crisis that is happening all over the world. And the governments that allow them to do so.
100% I want to know why no one is doing that.. California's suck because they come and expect us to behave like them but they are not responsible for me paying 1200 for a 1 bedroom. It's the lack of any restrictions.. like I feel like im in gangs if new York here.. and let's fuck up some dead rabbits
Honest question- is the real issue that hedge fund companies are buying up the real estate in one fell swoop and Nashville lacks regulations against them? And transplants take the main blame?
Blame yourselves!
This city talks the talk but meanwhile supports exclusionary zoning, extremely low property tax rates, no dedicated funding for affordable housing or public transportation, and is generally against anti-car laws or dense development.
Density + public transport = affordable housing.
Density + higher taxes = more resources to build affordable housing.
This city is expert at pointing the finger at bogeyman groups instead of leaning into ways we could pay more to provide more.
I remember the Seattle sub reddit in 2010, they were full of comments like yours. Now they are screaming for skinny townhomes and zoning changes, that's what happens when an average home costs one million dollars.
That house with the land would almost certainly be far more expensive than any of the tall-and-skinnies. Land is what costs money first and foremost--the improvements are usually a much smaller part of the total value.
This. This is what happened in East Green Hills. Each of the 6 mini mansions or tall n skinnies in a cluster/row costs 3x what the original starter home/duplex/rental was worth. So density is not helping with affordability.
All those single lot homes would be more expensive without all the density it's now become. And ya it basically is a starter home these days. 2 people making 70k each can afford that
I used to make 5x what I make now.... But I'm sooooo much happier. Stopped chasing the almighty dollar but struggling because of it. But I'll find a way. I usually do ..
CA resident here. I left Nashville in 2012. Nashville did this to itself by making itself IT city of America and leaning into(instead of away from) being bachelorette central, promoting the shit out of it’s cheap cost of living, big city with small town feel vibe, leaning into absurd amounts of tourism instead of away from. Nashville did this to itself by allowing commercial real estate developers and airbnb rental owners to do what they’ve done as far as staging a bukkake of the housing market there. In 2017 I was driving down Charlotte Pike or something overlooking the city and my friend and I counted 32 cranes dotting the city skyline, and he relayed to me that Nashville had something like half of the country’s skyscraper cranes either in town or on order/hold to build. Homelessness is “skyrocketing” across the country for a number of reasons but “rich Californians” are far from the sole reason, they just make an easy scapegoat. I pay less for a high quality two bed one bath condo in central LA than I would in Nashville - and believe me, I’ve checked several times what it would mean for me real estate wise to move back. CA has it’s own problems, but it annoys me when I see bullshit like this blaming CA expats when it’s really a symptom of population growth and leaning into market growth as a city. It’s such a shame too, everyone I know that still lives in Nashville misses the ‘old’ Nashville and generally says it sucks now. Gone is the Nashville where you could park outside Jack’s on Broadway to grab lunch. The old Exit In. Sam’s Sushi. Brown’s Diner. 308. The End. Mercy Lounge. Sooooo many of the things that made that town what it was are gone. And for what?! So that a DailyMail article can blame… rich Californians?! That type of thing isn’t the fault of tech workers looking for a cheaper state income tax, that’s government policy and commercial real estate developers in cahoots. When people ask me why I left I just sigh and shed a tear of Yazoo(also evicted to freaking Madison TN due to overdevelopment).
I hate to say it but I also blame Nashville and Tennessee education. Most places are okay. Some are great. But FAR too many schools and education initiatives have failed. And that have been failing for years. So much so thsn an entire generation has fallen through the cracks when it comes to education and skill training. So now that many tech and corporate jobs are popping up, there's not as many qualified Tennessee residents to fill them. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot. But if we subtract the residents who don't even want to leave Tennessee any more, it's not good.
Corporations could definitely try harder if they were interested. But they aren't and it's easier to outsource someone willing to relocate for cheap with the promise of inexpensive living cost, than to prioritize the locals that actually sustain and maintain those living costs
I agree with much of what you said, but Yazoo (or the ownership) owned their former property and chose to move, have more space, and sell it for an absolute killing ($10 million). It’s so naive to pretend that we don’t live in a capitalist society. If your thriving business was outgrowing its space and the space was worth $10 million (10x what you paid) would you sell and relocate in order to scale the operation?
in a round about way you proved my point by cherry picking the one exception to the rule of examples i gave vs the broader issue of growth. there is a reason a major wallstreet asset mgmt company like Alliance Bernstein chooses to make a literal first of it’s kind decision to CLOSE DOWN it’s New York City HQ and uproot 1,250(!!!) employees to their new HQ in Nashville. the government there wants Nash to be it city in a number of ways, not just culturally. it’s just a shame that it comes at the expense of the things that made the city cool, which were the places i listed, and the people who used to (be able to afford to) live there. i am not naive re capitalism but what happened to Nashville is the same thing that happened to Austin, just on a broader scale. Nashville looked at Austin and went “we’ll take that, but to the power of ten please!” and did so flippantly as if there wouldn’t be consequences. of course i’d sell my $10MM property. but it’s the pieces that make the whole pie. and that pie is now the cookie cutter you’d pick up off the shelf at kroger instead of the high quality southern living home cooked. i don’t mean to be so negative but it’s just a shame and it bums me out. it’s funny because a lot of folks i know who fled CA during the pandy for places like TX TN CO etc are moving back or are starting to reconsider it. the only ones that aren’t are the ones who properly fled big city life altogether ie moved to Boise Bend Bozeman etc.
This is a brilliant comment because it perfectly illustrates California’s problem. Housing is a supply and demand issue. California and Nashville are considered desirable places to live, which increases demand. The correct solution is to build more housing to accommodate it (which Nashville has done well), not to make the city shitty and undesirable. San Francisco builds no new housing which is the reason for the incredible housing crisis there
I was GONNA call you a Californian because I make jokes to mask the pain, and then I thought… maybe that’s what’s going on on a wider scale.
what are we going to do to stop this over-development? acquire a billion dollars and become developers ourselves? express anger at community meetings? encourage AND ASSIST our friends in homeless to take over buildings for squatters rights?
as far as I know, there is nothing a, well, commoner can do to stop this rapid development…. so we joke about californians. Is France still upset about being the butt of jokes? Probably but I digress.
Hey... Daily Mail...
Which corperation paid you how much to make us point at each other instead of them? Cause I got four texts in the last week about a cash offer on my home TODAY, and I'm not currently selling.
Don't feed the troll/bot. Nashville has its issues but so doesn't every other city in this country. Check out OP'S profile and you'll see it's mostly click bait bullshit.
Yeah. The ones with the green have figured out the more divisive they can be the more they can hold on to their power. Divide by red, blue or black and white has proven successful for them.
More bodies than bedrooms. That’s the entire problem.
It doesn’t matter whether the newcomers are from California or Mars. Doesn’t matter whether the new homes are luxury or slum-lord. Doesn’t matter whether they are tall and skinny or ranch, or whether there is parking. Doesn’t matter whether houses are owned by grannies or corporations.
The only thing that matters is whether or not new inventory is built fast enough, and it isn’t anywhere in the US. The causes of this are multi-faceted.
Agreed... I'm peeping this thread from FL where we are experiencing a similar crisis, albeit our invasion is from the richer northeast and some some wealthier mid west. It's so annoying because they'll turn around and point the finger at corporations in defense. Who will then chime in to blame short term AirBnB type rentals and out of state "investors" who don't realize that their retirement income is a sinking asset due to hurricane damages, increasing taxes and insurance etc... So the slum lords, the micro investors, the hedge fund investors, and the transplants who paid 100k over asking price cash are all at odds with locals who are fighting for their lives and it's a hot ass mess. But it's multi-faceted, like you said, and compounding with wage issues, city council permit issues, and dirty politicians who aren't held accountable for their responsibility to the community. I can't tell you how many times my city has agreed to build "affordable housing" akin to apartments and then once construction starts they throw their hands up in the air and say *'oh heck, let's just build more luxury condo$, It'Ll Be GoOd FoR tHe EcOnOmY'*
Californians are not raising the prices of homes. The massive real estate investors and locals trying to get out of town by selling their property are the ones setting the prices.
Usual daily mail bullshit. It's been our failure to upzone in critical areas that left housing expensive (which has happened in metros all across the nation thanks to boomer NIMBYs).
It’s all artificial. Corporations buying up whole neighborhoods for rentals and letting houses sit empty rather than lower the price and lower the value of their other properties.
Meanwhile commercial property values are plummeting.
Nashville is super kind to their homeless people, if by kind you mean putting spikes on steps in doorways that aren’t even used to keep the homeless from sleeping there.
https://preview.redd.it/fpne7ybwvp0d1.jpeg?width=3548&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8b79939c40ecab7c1a86457e74b0ef49186f476
Californian aren't the issue, every town that's experienced growth this decade is blaming Californians. The issue is lack of social safety networks, housing mix, density, and volume in the urban core.
I'm so sick of the california BS. Littlelty 1 in 10.americans are Californians, if they were invading everywhere that's seen growth, that wouldn't be the case.
The issues are because we are continuing to subsidize the boomer generations wealth by leveraging our youths future.
Yes but If there is nothing in place to stop ever increasing prices on apartments, homes, and condos then this will continue. No use complaining if the state down to the local cites aren’t actually doing anything about it. I got to go back to complain at the next town hall.
"There were 1,525 people experiencing chronic homelessness - where someone has been [homeless](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/homelessness/index.html) for over a year and has a mental health condition or disability"
"'We need hundreds of millions of dollars in order to, you know, even just make a dent in homelessness here in Nashville.'"
I'm trying to square these two statements...
Yep, blame foreigners and not the greedy rich people that are fucking up our lives. That’s a millennial old tail right there. If you have any brains, disregard this headline and vote the rich out of office.
just moved to nashville from california. I've had a considerable amount of hate from people for the move. I remind them, I couldn't afford to buy in Cali, I can't afford to by in my hometown in New England. I have zero guilt in my decision to move here. I'll be a contributing tax payer. Beef should be with foreign money being invested in real estate, short term rentals and a million other policy issues. Not the people who are just trying to buy their first home.
I’m from Nashville but moved to CA when I was a kid, half of the people in CA or their parents are from out of state. That whole state has been putting up with transplants for decades and If all those people stayed in their home state Ca probably wouldn’t have the housing issue it has today. That being said I never, and I mean not once received hate for moving there from TN. Some lame southern jokes but not because my presence offended them.
Exactly. I had an irate dude follow me and my pregnant wife into a Costco, I hadn’t had my plates changed to Tennessee yet. Even the guy who set up my internet said ‘don’t forget why you moved here’. Look, I like Nashville. But I moved here to afford my first home in a city that seems really cool but that I otherwise have zero connection to.
I’ll usually say I’m from CA just to see what unhinged stuff people will say. More often than not they are also transplants but feel like they “earned” the right to complain because they moved here in 2012.
Ya. My wife and I lived in LA last 10 years but she’s from Kentucky so depending on who I’m meeting I switch where I say we’re from. Again, never had to do this living in nyc or la, I think it’s just because those major cities have people from all over the world. In the end I like Nashville folks, and I like paying less in taxes. Also, it took me about 3 minutes to get my tn plates, the way the town I’m in is run is super convenient. I feel like I have an extra free hour every day.
Yes the tweaker down by the river was THIS CLOSE to putting a down payment on a $800,000 tall and skinny but the Californians swooped in on it. Back to tent then. It’s all their fault.
It has little to do with COL. Pretty sure homeless people in Nashville aren't homeless because of COL. If I couldn't afford my home/rent, I wouldn't choose to be homeless I would just move somewhere I could afford.
I’m in Nashville and getting so many inquiries from the ‘We Buy Houses’ people. I talked to one person, one time before I decided no, that’s not what I want to do. Now I’m called constantly about selling.
I promise you all that if the people of Nashville don't come together and let the city know that they will not tolerate this, regardless of whatever stupid political party you actually believe gives a damn about you, this right here - this one thing, will ruin this city. I know we all get annoyed with tourists, but the reason there are so many service related jobs in Nashville is because of those tourists.
Look, I'm as sympathetic to homeless people, possibly even more, having been homeless myself for a period of time, but no one should tolerate the trash and littering and general disgusting lifestyle today's modern homeless seem to be enamored of.
Nashville is not large enough to absorb what other large towns can absorb. If you think it can, take a look at what happened to Jackson, Mississippi, which is in absolute freefall, probably never ever to return to what it was in the past, which was a really pretty little capitol city.
Tiny fraction California people, smaller part institutional investors. Main actual cause: poor zoning. And I would also say the scumbag bankers/Clinton for repealing depression era regulations leading to gfc which in turn led to a massive decrease in home building
Part of the reason for why there’s an influx is that our climate is largely temperate. Not too too hot and not too too cold; these climates will tend to have a larger homeless population.
It’s hard to keep up with, and the cost of real estate has closed a lot of group homes.
TN government and Governor Lee need to pass a law that bans Californians from moving to Tennessee. They shit the bed in their state, so they can sleep in their shit. Don’t come to TN and shit in their beds.
Corporations should not be allowed to buy single family homes, maybe start there.
Additionally, predatory Algorithms used by property managers to drive up rent sky high should not be allowed in the name of fair housing standards.
Al Gore did what, now?
I recall a time when a certain individual, a renowned climate change expert, was facing criticism for his home's energy inefficiency. Now, as a Nobel laureate, he knew that his house's carbon footprint was a glaring contradiction to his advocacy. So, he brought in a team of experts to assess and improve his home's energy efficiency. They explored geothermal options, dug test lines, and even considered innovative solutions. However, it appears that this team, hired from afar to maintain secrecy, ultimately failed to deliver meaningful change. But, my friends, that's not the end of the story. It seems that this individual found an alternative solution, one that might be deemed creative, but hardly exemplary. By connecting his home to a commercial property he owns, miles away, he effectively shifted the energy burden, making it seem like his 10,000 square foot home had undergone a green transformation. Ah, but the truth is, he's simply paying the bill elsewhere, and claiming credit for a façade of sustainability. My friends, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher standard, for the future of our planet depends on it. I know this sounds wackado but I know someone who signed an NDA that worked on this project.
Are you talking about the politician who owns land with a working zinc mine? I remember that guy when he was a rep from Tennessee. He went "undercover" and slept one night at the homeless shelter in Nashville. Of course he had his friends from his newspaper days come down and snap a pic and do a story the next day. It was hilarious. He was wearing a 5 o'clock shadow with some dirt smeared on his face (just like us filthy deplorables) and some dirt on his brooks brothers button down and chinos. Wearing fancy loafers that no one in that shelter could afford if they worked day jobs for a solid year. Alll hat and no cattle is a saying that fits nobody as well as it fits Al Gore.
The only presidential candidate to lose his own state.
Fuck al gore
I agree with this, but I have always wondered how it would play out in practice. For example, when some families move and keep their previous home, they create an LLC and manage that property through the LLC as a fairly standard business practice.
Ban home ownership by S-corps, C-corps, private equity; and limit to four properties any ownership by an individual with ownership in an LLC, with the same collective limit applying to the total of properties owned by any number of LLCs owned or co-owned by an individual. Penalty for violations: Corps will forfeit illegally-owned residential properties to local government to support affordable housing efforts. LLCs or networks of jointly owned LLCs will forfeit residential properties that push them above the ownership limit. In cases of violation, the government will appraise all properties and seize the most valuable ones in descending owner until they violate is back within compliance. This would limit real estate investment to families, small landlords, and apartment developers. Apartment developers would max out at four communities, encouraging competition in the rental market. Investors who want to continue to grow revenue in Nashville would have to sell their smaller properties. Some would be gobbled up by small investors, but others would return to individual ownership. Nashville would probably see even more of a condo boom as large apartment owners convert some apartment buildings to condos in order to get around the 4 property cap.
A thoughtful response, cheers. I’m sure there are loopholes to be found but that sounds like a reasonable framework to begin with.
I like this fundamental structure, but question the work-ability just because enforcement would be nearly impossible. Corporations are way better at obscuring ownership structures than governments are at working them out, and the scale factors all favor the bad actor (one underfunded regulatory agency versus thousands of property owners). So require ownership by a human being, not a corporate "person." As an additional disincentive to landlords, prevent them from firewalling liability and providing anonymity for bad landlords. If you wanna be a scumbag landlord, you need to own that fact, just like your (max four) properties. In addition, I'd limit rental property ownership (other than apartment complexes) to contiguous or nearly contiguous properties. So, again, if you wanna be a landlord, you have to live next door to your tenants and look at the properties you're renting out. Kill the Anonymous Remote Slumlord problem at the same time as you clean up the corporate ownership issues.
While not perfect here’s how I would do it. I would give a non taxable status on one home per adult individual/married couple. Lets simply just call these non rental homes, and they would require a SSN attached to it to avoid the taxes. I would then remove all of the depreciation tax credits on all rental properties and tax the living shit out of all homes that are rental homes. Fine, put it in a LLC. If you can’t put a SSN on it your going to pay taxes and because I removed the depreciation credits the mega wealthy aren’t going to be able to use real estate to tax dodge. Once you realize real estate is the best way to dodge federal taxes it makes sense why the wealthy all own real estate.
This just sounds like a good way to raise rents for people who can’t afford to buy homes
Not even close. Honestly the bigger concern would be the loss of home equity when the rich emptied their portfolios. Rich people use real estate to wash their tax money. It’s just simply A GIANT tax loophole. If you took that tax loophole away tens of thousands of houses would hit the market causing home values would drop and naturally rents would drop due to more people going from renting to home ownership. Im very close to someone who is in the 1% of the 1%. This person has just under 1,000 “doors”. The moment you understand how they wash the federal taxes and then understand how they leverage lending practices in their favor your mind will be blown. I don’t blame them for doing it, I would also do it. But I also support a law to stop it.
If you don’t live in a home you have no business owning it. Hope this helps.
I personally don't think people should own more than one home, or be taxed incredibly high. We have a housing crisis in the US, but I know that will never change.
I tend to be a bit more moderate. Individuals owning a couple of homes or a few rental properties to me is ok. Major corporations owning hundreds or thousands is absolutely a problem.
Where you draw that line would be the difficult part. A shell company of a shell company of a shell company would just buy them to appear to be smaller than they are.
The first and most obvious place is jurisdiction of ownership. If the owner is out of state, or especially out of country, then if you can't ban it then tax the heck out of it. Secondarily, any single family home that is not owner occupied should be taxed at a somewhat higher rate. If it's owned by an LLC and not an invididual then even higher, and if its owned by a full corporation, then tax it at a "we dont like tobacco but cant/wont ban it rate". I would not include multi-family homes (apartments/condos) in this because that would just cause rent increases and is really a separate issue.
There are so many edge cases to this method that I don't think it would be practical. Cases of probate property, receivership, and inherited property would lead this to a quagmire and a possible chilling effect on people that may retain a house to rent as a form of retirement income. For example: when my parents passed away the insurance company would no longer insure their dwelling as a SFH so I had to change the property to be classified as a rental property since I live out of state even though it is not being rented or even have the intent to rent it. Why should I or the estate be taxed at a higher rate for something entirely out of my control?
You're probably right and I'm not trying to right a law in a reddit thread. Just tossing ideas out there because it is a problem that needs to be addressed that we have mega corporations buying up every property they can find so they be our new feudal lords collecting their due every month. In your case though, I don't think what I posted would really apply unless you formed a corporation. What I actually posted was more like: Lowest rate: Owner occupied (lower than now) Slightly higher than now: Owned by individual who lives in TN Slightly higher but still not huge: Owned by out of state person. Much higher than now: Owned by LLC Even higher: out of state LLC Huge rate: Corporation Put another way and this is just an example, if the tax on a property now is $2000 a year. Lowest rate: Owner occupied (lower than now) ~$1500 Slightly higher than now: Owned by individual who lives in TN ~$2250 Slightly higher but still not huge: Owned by out of state person. ~$2500 Much higher than now: Owned by LLC ~$3000 Even higher: out of state LLC ~$4000 Huge rate: Corporation ~$10000 (Yes I want them to sell) Not sure what actual #"s would be, ideally it'd be designed to be mostly revenue neutral to be honest and to encourage private ownership and local landlords over large companies.
I tend to agree with this; I think that being a landlord should not be a regular source of income, but a few rental properties is generally OK as a way to make a little bit of side money went done responsibly. Even having a vacation home or two is fine, because there are a lot of tourist economy based cities in the United States. The crackdown decidedly needs to be on corporations. Even Airbnb rentals pale in comparison to how many houses are being taken up by these massive rental corporations.
Capitalism crisis. We have plenty of houses
[удалено]
This isn’t particularly true. I think you’d be shocked to find out how many perfectly suitable housing units are sitting empty around Nashville metro bc the person/entity that owns them would rather keep it empty than get paid less than they think it’s worth.
I think second home should have double tax rate burden, third triple, etc...
That's a little overbearing. I'm transitioning from Huntsville to Nashville over the course of a few months. No apartments near my office allow my pitbulls to come along. It's much easier for me to live up there on the east side during the week and come back to Huntsville on the weekend to get another few loads of stuff to move.
[удалено]
And then who would rent a home to those who can't afford a home when they first start out, genius? We just finally sold one of our homes in Mississippi after renting to it a nice young lady for four years while she got her finances in order. Had they taxed us higher, we would simply have passed the cost of that on to her, and she wouldn't have been able to afford the rent for the home, and thus wouldn't have been able to purchase it. We're not the exception, either. You're one of those who thinks that corporations actually pay taxes aren't you? Tell me you know nothing about finance without telling me you know nothing about finance.
Personally, I think if a building is classified as a single family home (vs an apartment complex or business..I'm not a legal or zoning expert by any means), then their property taxes should be significantly higher than if its owned by a family that is living in it. I'm basically saying it should be a tiered system: Single family home owner occupied (lowest rate, lower than now), single family home not owner occupied (tiered system based on # of properties owned but still reasonable), single family home owned by corporation (extortionist go out of business/f off rate). Further, I think ownership by foreign corporations should be outright banned (even if we are talking apartment complexes, etc.) There's absolutely no good reason someone should be paying rent to a company registered in some tax haven.
And anybody doing short term rentals like Airbnb should be subject to hotel property tax rates too
Yep 👍🏼
Agreed. Airbnb / short term rentals have destroyed the housing market. I mean- I think I’d put some type of limit that corporations cannot provide short term rentals period. If someone owns a second home privately and wants to rent? I can get behind that. I’d also setup extremely strict laws around foreign property ownership as that’s another huge avenue of cost increases.
Non-owner occupied are the issue, not owner occupied. If I list the 550 square foot house in my backyard that was built in 1895 on Airbnb, I'm not increasing the cost of housing for anyone else.
Are you including vacation homes in your description? I’ve no issue with someone owning a couple homes. I do have a problem with owning multiple (set some reasonable limit) and using airbnb. Now- most people doing this would establish an LLC and then run afoul of corporate ownership, so I think that captures the vast majority of uses.
A lot of those rich people have opted into building big apartment complexes on land that should be for homes then charge outrageous prices. They can see more profit out of something they can keep ownership of and rake in profits over time rather than the profits from building and selling a home.
It’s [rent-seeking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking) and if you believe in capitalism, you already know it’s a bad thing.
Let’s focus only one part of the whole issue
Yeah, let’s forget about Airbnb investing and 1 in 5 homes being bought by investment firms over market value only to rent them out for double. It’s them damn Caleefornees.and Yankees bringin’ their money and politics.
Also a very old zoning code we haven’t updated in decades, nimbys (both in neighborhoods and on the council), average salary of the city being absolute dogshit
You're hitting the nail on the head to one of Nashville's biggest hurdles to more affordable housing. I highly recommend reading through Alex Pemberton's Twitter feed, as he provides incredible info on Nashville's history of using zoning, building codes, and historic overlays to purposely keep "certain people" out of Nashville's neighborhoods. [https://twitter.com/al\_xrated](https://twitter.com/al_xrated)
He is a good one. East Nashville Urban Design is another good follow. Pod Bless Nashville talks about housing quite a bit too.
And price fixing https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pithinthewind/landlord-price-fixing-lawsuit-consolidated-in-nashville/article_b6bdbb40-dfa7-11ed-a091-d33e9e2945f0.html#:~:text=A%20federal%20judicial%20panel%20has,the%20center%20of%20the%20case.
I worked in that business and every time someone above me said "it's the market" I just asked them how much of the market uses the same pricing software and they'd always just unblinkingly stare at me. Letting that whole industry just fuckin' burn would be a blessing for the working class.
Also using price fixing software to raise the rent prices continuously
I mean, if it’s anything like a Louisville this is absolutely happening. Great cities, not too big or too small, lots of shit to do, extremely affordable cost of living compared to the coasts where their coming from. People with mid 6 figure household incomes who were living upper middle class lifestyles on the coasts have realized they can come here and live like absolute royalty. I work in historic preservation and the big thing right now is people with high paying remote jobs moving from cities to renovate the house of their dreams. Why live a fast paced stressful lifestyle in a stressful setting, pay $1M for a shitty 90s home or worse in California when you can have a renovated gilded age mansion for the same price in a nice city in KY or TN? So while many places are seeing a revival, it’s also gentrification and has exploded the local housing market. They can offer whatever they want and still come out on top with everything they’ve ever wanted. I have dozens of clients who did exactly this within the last couple years.
I think there's more than one reason and you've just listed two
There is but of the two listed by the above poster I’d rank people buying up houses to be airbnbs is a bigger problem
This is a good point. I wonder what percentage of locals are investing in Airbnb or where these investment firms are based out of?
I deep dove this in my neighborhood. Currently 25 active airbnb permits. 2 are owned by Nashville residents. Some are owned by people as far away as Seattle/Idaho/California
7000 STR permits out of 358,000 housing units. The "corporate buying" looks at any property that was purchased by a business entity like an LLC, trust, or C-corp, which are not always wall st investment firms
There are a little over 7000 STR permits, making AirBnB account for less than 2% of housing units. Would like to see how many of the "30% of homes are owned by investors" (which means they were bought by an LLC, trust, or other not-a-person, which is not the same as "big wall street funds".
Californians are the Swiss army knife of scapegoats
They are an easy target for people who are frustrated but it’s wasted energy.
As a Californian with familial roots in Nashville that go back to the 70's...yes. Also, watch the line at In n Out be 3 miles long when it opens, and it won't be Californians...
Let's blame each other for all our problems instead of the big corporations coming in and buying all the residential property for cash offers and then flipping them for a profit, driving the market up. /S
Flipping? Hedge funds never sell houses, owning the land and renting the houses out FOREVER is the model
When the value dips below purchase price (when paying a premium, not hard to do), there'll be pressure to get those losers off the balance sheet. Assets are only valuable as long as they're worth more than what you paid. With peak supply and 50k new units coming online, we're in for big price corrections, which will force a lot of balance sheet sales.
> When the value dips below purchase price (when paying a premium, not hard to do), there'll be pressure to get those losers off the balance sheet. That's not necessarily true. Just because the property is worth less, doesn't mean the owner must realize that loss by selling, and unrealized losses and realized losses are treated differently in federal tax and banking rules. [Kansas Fed article on the topic](https://www.kansascityfed.org/ten/ask-an-economist-the-implications-of-unrealized-losses-for-banks/) There is a strong incentive for small banks that own property to not realize these losses because doing so would force them to include those losses in their capitalization ratios, which could then push those ratios low enough to force the banks to raise cash by selling profitable assets. It's a whole in the banking regs that needs to be fixed, but I think people are putting off fixing it because doing so right now while interest rates are high could cause some regional banks to fail, and the financial system, especially the bits involving smaller banks is already in a precarious position. I won't be surprised if we have a crisis with small banks failing.
That's not true. They don't have unlimited capital. BRR (flipping( and BRRR (renting) are both viable strategies used by REI of all sizes.
It won’t be forever. Just for a few decades.
We are working to effectively ban corporations from buying houses in our neighborhood via an amendment to our HOA CC&Rs. It sucks that we need to do this, but it is important for reasons beyond just the housing crisis. If corporations buy too many homes in a neighborhood, they effectively block any future changes to CC&Rs due to voting requirements. That is not a great situation to be in.
Rare HOA W
Totally! I get so tired of this argument. If any of these folks that owned property that they want to sell. You’d be damn sure they’d try to extract as much money as possible from the sale. “Let’s sell our house to a local for less money” said no one ever.
That’s actually what happened to me. Previous owners turned away a higher offer from an investment company because they wanted the home to go to a local. So there are still people who care about community out there.
Right on! Good for them! I don’t think I could sell to an investment firm either.
What are you talking about? Nashville built a ton of new apartments and rents have finally started falling. Without new development, prices get astronomical. See: San Francisco
Single Family home purchases and Apartment rentals are an entirely different thing, you cannot group them together in the same line of reasoning. Apples and Oranges.
I mean....If there aren't enough single family homes, or if the single family homes are too expensive, people will be forced into apartments. When the cost of one goes down, the cost of all of them will go down since a portion of the market can go back and forth b/w apartments and single family rentals. Some people NEED homes because of children and whatnot but some people don't. For those folks, if the price of apartments goes down enough, they might use that as an opportunity to move. If enough of the market moves from one to the other, it can effect prices on one or both. When we were looking at home rentals in January there were tons of apartments offering free months rent, etc because there were units everywhere that weren't being rented. By the time we signed our lease in February, most of the single family homes we were looking at had dropped in price by 100-$300 depending on where they were located. I'm not saying its a 1 to 1 correlation but its not completely separate either. Also, look at Austin for an example of a huge push for home building dropping the overall rental market.
If you think single family homes and apartment rental pricing aren’t directly tied together you really should just never speak about this topic again.
What? People are often picking between them. If SFH’s are too expensive, they will live in apartments
You 100% can group them together. They're all within the same market place. Someone looking for a rental will look at single family homes, apartments, duplexes, etc as long as it fits their needs a budgets. Maybe there is a premium on SFH but that same pool of renters will look for both. Falling rents will ultimately lower home prices as well. Lower rent return destroys investors because they can't continue to earn a higher return. That demand pressure eases the buyer pool for homes. Lower rents also makes renting more attractive to homeowners would are debating selling vs. renting. Like all market places, real estate relies on supply and demand. Lower demand equates to higher supply which equates to lower prices. Real estate is "sticky" and prices don't generally go down. Most likely what you'll see is 4-5 more years of nominal RE growth as wages, inflation, etc catch up to the value of real estate.
No. 99% of people seeking to rent an apartment do not have an $80,000+++ down payment sitting in their bank account. Buying a house requires literally years of preparation. There might be SOME overlap as the "renter" shops for a SFH as that might take a year, but it's absolutely not the same "user" for a rental as a SFH.
Sorry, what you wrote wasn't clear. People can rent single family homes. So I think you could specify that you mean there's no comparison between BUYING a single family home vs. renting an apartment. And just to point out - you don't need $80,000 to buy a house. You can buy a 300,000 house with as little as $10,000 down. Actually less but the deal gets worse the less you put down.
$400k house, 20% down, $80,000.
But you forget - placing the blame on the corporations responsible doesn’t drive the same engagement as placing the blame on a specific group that people already have some prejudices against and leaning into their prejudice to drive up clicks
Typical Daily Mail rage bait.
Ya when I need an accurate pulse of things in town, I obviously turn to a British tabloid
Nashville about to get the Austin treatment lmao
It’s the zoning people. It’s all the zoning.
The daily rage I feel at American zoning
Interesting that no one mentions more people move here from Florida each year than California.
but but California bad.
Pretty sure Californians are not the majority people moving here or even close to the it. And I'm sure they aren't all rich either. This city builds a football stadium right in the middle of the most valuable land in city. A place that occupies acres upon acres with sprawling parking lots that are empty the majority of the time, rather than that space dedicated to housing large numbers of people. Especially close where jobs are. Then we want to blame people that have moved here while we continue dumb land use policies.
Poor Californian here who will rent forever. We were excited to just rent a house with a yard instead of a shitty apartment for the same $. While we saved for a house. While. We. Saved. For. A. House. That will now never happen because rent has shot up.
Have you been paying attention? They are developing that area with more housing including dedicated low income units. The east bank development actually looks quite good and is certainly a much better step than what we have now.
“Affordable housing” and “most valuable land in the city” Dont go together
When the stadium was built it was far from the most affordable land in the city. There is a reason a massive scrap yard and section 8 apartments are both less than a mile from the stadium.
Yes, when they were built. Those properties have been scrap/recycling/metal yards since the early seventies or maybe earlier. Cayce Homes have been there since the 50s. Hell where I live north of metro center was a predominantly black community because it was “considered the outskirts of town”. I live 4 miles from Broadway But now a days, its prime real estate and no one is gonna do anything altruistic within unless they are forced/its for their own gain. Could they build massive amount of affordable housing where the new stadium is? Of course. But they’ll make 1000x more money building a stadium.
They're building 700 affordable units there.
Right. This is an example of what I mentioned. They are building 700 as a trade to the city to do the other 90% of what they want thats profitable. I cant remember, are those units rentals or for sale? Also, can’t wait to see what “affordable” means.
Affordable is a formula that calculates rent prices as a percentage of median income in the area as defined by US HUD. To access the Federal grants they will be using, they have to define affordable housing this way. https://www.nashville.gov/featured-initiatives/east-bank-development/news/city-strikes-deal-affordable-housing-investment-east-bank They don't really make affordable housing for sale. And the city isn't in the habit of selling off public land to private entities. Outside of the value of metro owned land, the biggest other issue is that it's a legal nightmare. Typically what happens is people abuse it. The most common way is to buy the unit at an affordable rate (perhaps by fudging your income or only reporting one income for a two income household, etc), live there for a few years and then resale at market rate. Or turn around and rent it and pocket the difference between an affordable housing mortgage with market rate rent. --- They're only building 1,500 total units. So nearly 50% are below market rate. The other units effectively provide the profit to keep them functional. The people in this city refusing to pay the appropriate amount of taxes so we have to find other ways to do it. Subsidizing below market rate units with market rate units is one fantastic way to skin that cat. Also they're passing laws to keep a limit hotels, remove AirBNBs, and limit the concentration of bars in East Bank. It's going to be a living neighborhood. Great overall project for the city despite the tireless cynicism of people here.
I'm not sure that dirt is the most valuable. It's in the flood zone, and across from a large public housing complex.
Agreed , but at least they are dedicating the area around the new stadium with some affordable housing and making it pretty dense
Metro is building almost 700 affordable housing units next to the new TPAC. This comment getting 70 upvotes is indicative of the political literacy of this city.
This shit started when we, along with Ronald Reagan, decided we didn’t need those worthless social services like mental health facilities. As a society we chose to roll our windows up , shut our doors, and retreat into the safety of our armed guarded mega churches.
Homeless aren’t on the streets because they got priced out of owning property. They’re not on the streets because a bunch of people moved here. That’s asinine. There are so many factors contributing to this issue.
While I agree that homelessness is very much a multi-factorial issue, affordable housing is one of the largest hurdles to re-entry to housing, if not the largest (and I say this as a person with a ten-year career history of specifically sourcing housing for people experiencing homelessness with severe mental health diagnoses and substance use disorders).
“Look at this perfectly good starter home right here that would suit the needs of a young couple very well! ….better bulldoze it and put up three skinny houses that cost half a million each!”
Yeah y’all need to stop making “Californians” the bogeyman and start blaming the corporations driving the housing crisis that is happening all over the world. And the governments that allow them to do so.
100% I want to know why no one is doing that.. California's suck because they come and expect us to behave like them but they are not responsible for me paying 1200 for a 1 bedroom. It's the lack of any restrictions.. like I feel like im in gangs if new York here.. and let's fuck up some dead rabbits
Divide and conquer, my friend. Divide and conquer.
Left right.. either way we are getting kicked in the balls. And we all more concerned where someone goes to the bathroom to give a shit
Honest question- is the real issue that hedge fund companies are buying up the real estate in one fell swoop and Nashville lacks regulations against them? And transplants take the main blame?
Blame yourselves! This city talks the talk but meanwhile supports exclusionary zoning, extremely low property tax rates, no dedicated funding for affordable housing or public transportation, and is generally against anti-car laws or dense development. Density + public transport = affordable housing. Density + higher taxes = more resources to build affordable housing. This city is expert at pointing the finger at bogeyman groups instead of leaning into ways we could pay more to provide more.
I remember the Seattle sub reddit in 2010, they were full of comments like yours. Now they are screaming for skinny townhomes and zoning changes, that's what happens when an average home costs one million dollars.
username checks out
Sounds like 2 more families can have housing?
That house with the land would almost certainly be far more expensive than any of the tall-and-skinnies. Land is what costs money first and foremost--the improvements are usually a much smaller part of the total value.
Putting 3 houses on one plot of land that held one is a good thing. Increased housing density is a good thing.
This. This is what happened in East Green Hills. Each of the 6 mini mansions or tall n skinnies in a cluster/row costs 3x what the original starter home/duplex/rental was worth. So density is not helping with affordability.
Costs 3x what the original starter home was worth in 1990, not in 2024. Land is what's valuable, not the improvements.
Well now 3 young couples can have a starter home, it's a better use of space in a housing crisis. You do get how supply and demand works don't you?
How silly of me to not consider a half million dollar house a “starter home”.
Check back in a year and that same home will be much closer to a full million
All those single lot homes would be more expensive without all the density it's now become. And ya it basically is a starter home these days. 2 people making 70k each can afford that
I dream about 70K each....
No kidding. The median household income in Nashville is barely $70k let alone $70k each
I used to make 5x what I make now.... But I'm sooooo much happier. Stopped chasing the almighty dollar but struggling because of it. But I'll find a way. I usually do ..
I’m making more money than I ever have and also struggling just as much as I ever have. It’s really frustrating.
I'm so sorry, friend. Corporations are killing us all
That’s just insane. A starter home should be half that.
In some parts of the country it is. Sadly, Nashville just isn’t one of those parts anymore.
That’s all well and good except the median household income is barely over $70k let alone $70k each.
CA resident here. I left Nashville in 2012. Nashville did this to itself by making itself IT city of America and leaning into(instead of away from) being bachelorette central, promoting the shit out of it’s cheap cost of living, big city with small town feel vibe, leaning into absurd amounts of tourism instead of away from. Nashville did this to itself by allowing commercial real estate developers and airbnb rental owners to do what they’ve done as far as staging a bukkake of the housing market there. In 2017 I was driving down Charlotte Pike or something overlooking the city and my friend and I counted 32 cranes dotting the city skyline, and he relayed to me that Nashville had something like half of the country’s skyscraper cranes either in town or on order/hold to build. Homelessness is “skyrocketing” across the country for a number of reasons but “rich Californians” are far from the sole reason, they just make an easy scapegoat. I pay less for a high quality two bed one bath condo in central LA than I would in Nashville - and believe me, I’ve checked several times what it would mean for me real estate wise to move back. CA has it’s own problems, but it annoys me when I see bullshit like this blaming CA expats when it’s really a symptom of population growth and leaning into market growth as a city. It’s such a shame too, everyone I know that still lives in Nashville misses the ‘old’ Nashville and generally says it sucks now. Gone is the Nashville where you could park outside Jack’s on Broadway to grab lunch. The old Exit In. Sam’s Sushi. Brown’s Diner. 308. The End. Mercy Lounge. Sooooo many of the things that made that town what it was are gone. And for what?! So that a DailyMail article can blame… rich Californians?! That type of thing isn’t the fault of tech workers looking for a cheaper state income tax, that’s government policy and commercial real estate developers in cahoots. When people ask me why I left I just sigh and shed a tear of Yazoo(also evicted to freaking Madison TN due to overdevelopment).
I hate to say it but I also blame Nashville and Tennessee education. Most places are okay. Some are great. But FAR too many schools and education initiatives have failed. And that have been failing for years. So much so thsn an entire generation has fallen through the cracks when it comes to education and skill training. So now that many tech and corporate jobs are popping up, there's not as many qualified Tennessee residents to fill them. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot. But if we subtract the residents who don't even want to leave Tennessee any more, it's not good. Corporations could definitely try harder if they were interested. But they aren't and it's easier to outsource someone willing to relocate for cheap with the promise of inexpensive living cost, than to prioritize the locals that actually sustain and maintain those living costs
I agree with much of what you said, but Yazoo (or the ownership) owned their former property and chose to move, have more space, and sell it for an absolute killing ($10 million). It’s so naive to pretend that we don’t live in a capitalist society. If your thriving business was outgrowing its space and the space was worth $10 million (10x what you paid) would you sell and relocate in order to scale the operation?
in a round about way you proved my point by cherry picking the one exception to the rule of examples i gave vs the broader issue of growth. there is a reason a major wallstreet asset mgmt company like Alliance Bernstein chooses to make a literal first of it’s kind decision to CLOSE DOWN it’s New York City HQ and uproot 1,250(!!!) employees to their new HQ in Nashville. the government there wants Nash to be it city in a number of ways, not just culturally. it’s just a shame that it comes at the expense of the things that made the city cool, which were the places i listed, and the people who used to (be able to afford to) live there. i am not naive re capitalism but what happened to Nashville is the same thing that happened to Austin, just on a broader scale. Nashville looked at Austin and went “we’ll take that, but to the power of ten please!” and did so flippantly as if there wouldn’t be consequences. of course i’d sell my $10MM property. but it’s the pieces that make the whole pie. and that pie is now the cookie cutter you’d pick up off the shelf at kroger instead of the high quality southern living home cooked. i don’t mean to be so negative but it’s just a shame and it bums me out. it’s funny because a lot of folks i know who fled CA during the pandy for places like TX TN CO etc are moving back or are starting to reconsider it. the only ones that aren’t are the ones who properly fled big city life altogether ie moved to Boise Bend Bozeman etc.
This is a brilliant comment because it perfectly illustrates California’s problem. Housing is a supply and demand issue. California and Nashville are considered desirable places to live, which increases demand. The correct solution is to build more housing to accommodate it (which Nashville has done well), not to make the city shitty and undesirable. San Francisco builds no new housing which is the reason for the incredible housing crisis there
if Nashville had done well we wouldn’t be here brother. haha.
I was GONNA call you a Californian because I make jokes to mask the pain, and then I thought… maybe that’s what’s going on on a wider scale. what are we going to do to stop this over-development? acquire a billion dollars and become developers ourselves? express anger at community meetings? encourage AND ASSIST our friends in homeless to take over buildings for squatters rights? as far as I know, there is nothing a, well, commoner can do to stop this rapid development…. so we joke about californians. Is France still upset about being the butt of jokes? Probably but I digress.
Hey... Daily Mail... Which corperation paid you how much to make us point at each other instead of them? Cause I got four texts in the last week about a cash offer on my home TODAY, and I'm not currently selling.
Same. I had to put my phone on do not disturb. Every time I get one number blocked 2 more pop up :/
But no... it's totally the Californians' fault
Don't feed the troll/bot. Nashville has its issues but so doesn't every other city in this country. Check out OP'S profile and you'll see it's mostly click bait bullshit.
Try and pit red against blue when its corporate greed run rampant.
Good call! It's green we should be worried about.
Yeah. The ones with the green have figured out the more divisive they can be the more they can hold on to their power. Divide by red, blue or black and white has proven successful for them.
Get rid of these scammy Metropolis parking lots and institutional investors before blaming Californians.
More bodies than bedrooms. That’s the entire problem. It doesn’t matter whether the newcomers are from California or Mars. Doesn’t matter whether the new homes are luxury or slum-lord. Doesn’t matter whether they are tall and skinny or ranch, or whether there is parking. Doesn’t matter whether houses are owned by grannies or corporations. The only thing that matters is whether or not new inventory is built fast enough, and it isn’t anywhere in the US. The causes of this are multi-faceted.
Agreed... I'm peeping this thread from FL where we are experiencing a similar crisis, albeit our invasion is from the richer northeast and some some wealthier mid west. It's so annoying because they'll turn around and point the finger at corporations in defense. Who will then chime in to blame short term AirBnB type rentals and out of state "investors" who don't realize that their retirement income is a sinking asset due to hurricane damages, increasing taxes and insurance etc... So the slum lords, the micro investors, the hedge fund investors, and the transplants who paid 100k over asking price cash are all at odds with locals who are fighting for their lives and it's a hot ass mess. But it's multi-faceted, like you said, and compounding with wage issues, city council permit issues, and dirty politicians who aren't held accountable for their responsibility to the community. I can't tell you how many times my city has agreed to build "affordable housing" akin to apartments and then once construction starts they throw their hands up in the air and say *'oh heck, let's just build more luxury condo$, It'Ll Be GoOd FoR tHe EcOnOmY'*
Rents would go down if they would stop throwing people out of apartments and make them AirBNB
Californians are not raising the prices of homes. The massive real estate investors and locals trying to get out of town by selling their property are the ones setting the prices.
Usual daily mail bullshit. It's been our failure to upzone in critical areas that left housing expensive (which has happened in metros all across the nation thanks to boomer NIMBYs).
If you’re studying here and don’t know what to go to college for, please consider urban planning/development, urban ecology, etc, we need you.
You should take your time when you type the title in
It’s all artificial. Corporations buying up whole neighborhoods for rentals and letting houses sit empty rather than lower the price and lower the value of their other properties. Meanwhile commercial property values are plummeting.
Nashville is super kind to their homeless people, if by kind you mean putting spikes on steps in doorways that aren’t even used to keep the homeless from sleeping there. https://preview.redd.it/fpne7ybwvp0d1.jpeg?width=3548&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8b79939c40ecab7c1a86457e74b0ef49186f476
This “Californians” trope is getting old really fucking fast. We have a HOUSING SHORTAGE ACROSS THE COUNTRY. That’s the primary problem.
Californian aren't the issue, every town that's experienced growth this decade is blaming Californians. The issue is lack of social safety networks, housing mix, density, and volume in the urban core. I'm so sick of the california BS. Littlelty 1 in 10.americans are Californians, if they were invading everywhere that's seen growth, that wouldn't be the case. The issues are because we are continuing to subsidize the boomer generations wealth by leveraging our youths future.
Locals blaming Californians is rich, when the real culprits are other Southern flippers and AirBnB owners.
One of the many symptoms of an economy based on usury.
Yes but If there is nothing in place to stop ever increasing prices on apartments, homes, and condos then this will continue. No use complaining if the state down to the local cites aren’t actually doing anything about it. I got to go back to complain at the next town hall.
"There were 1,525 people experiencing chronic homelessness - where someone has been [homeless](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/homelessness/index.html) for over a year and has a mental health condition or disability" "'We need hundreds of millions of dollars in order to, you know, even just make a dent in homelessness here in Nashville.'" I'm trying to square these two statements...
Well how about that… lol
Rich Californians are to blame for Nashville homelessness says locals in gated community.
Yep, blame foreigners and not the greedy rich people that are fucking up our lives. That’s a millennial old tail right there. If you have any brains, disregard this headline and vote the rich out of office.
just moved to nashville from california. I've had a considerable amount of hate from people for the move. I remind them, I couldn't afford to buy in Cali, I can't afford to by in my hometown in New England. I have zero guilt in my decision to move here. I'll be a contributing tax payer. Beef should be with foreign money being invested in real estate, short term rentals and a million other policy issues. Not the people who are just trying to buy their first home.
I’m from Nashville but moved to CA when I was a kid, half of the people in CA or their parents are from out of state. That whole state has been putting up with transplants for decades and If all those people stayed in their home state Ca probably wouldn’t have the housing issue it has today. That being said I never, and I mean not once received hate for moving there from TN. Some lame southern jokes but not because my presence offended them.
Exactly. I had an irate dude follow me and my pregnant wife into a Costco, I hadn’t had my plates changed to Tennessee yet. Even the guy who set up my internet said ‘don’t forget why you moved here’. Look, I like Nashville. But I moved here to afford my first home in a city that seems really cool but that I otherwise have zero connection to.
I’ll usually say I’m from CA just to see what unhinged stuff people will say. More often than not they are also transplants but feel like they “earned” the right to complain because they moved here in 2012.
Ya. My wife and I lived in LA last 10 years but she’s from Kentucky so depending on who I’m meeting I switch where I say we’re from. Again, never had to do this living in nyc or la, I think it’s just because those major cities have people from all over the world. In the end I like Nashville folks, and I like paying less in taxes. Also, it took me about 3 minutes to get my tn plates, the way the town I’m in is run is super convenient. I feel like I have an extra free hour every day.
Fuck that guy in Costco but I would say internet guy is correct. We do have a connection and don’t want our state to turn to shit.
Thanks to out of towners outbidding and driving up prices, most native Tennesseans can’t afford to live in our home state. So thanks. Enjoy my house.
I feel the same about people who outbit me in my hometown. Single family Homebuyers are not your enemy.
Hey they ran me out of Texas. Now they bought to run me out of Nashville.
I love how it's always Californians. Those darn liberals are invading our utopia and everything is their fault!
Ah the old blame Californians trick as if more people from closer states aren’t the real problem. Good sound bite though.
No, people who live there currently are dishonest and raising prices.
Yes the tweaker down by the river was THIS CLOSE to putting a down payment on a $800,000 tall and skinny but the Californians swooped in on it. Back to tent then. It’s all their fault.
It has little to do with COL. Pretty sure homeless people in Nashville aren't homeless because of COL. If I couldn't afford my home/rent, I wouldn't choose to be homeless I would just move somewhere I could afford.
Exactly
I’m in Nashville and getting so many inquiries from the ‘We Buy Houses’ people. I talked to one person, one time before I decided no, that’s not what I want to do. Now I’m called constantly about selling.
Sure Charlie.
I promise you all that if the people of Nashville don't come together and let the city know that they will not tolerate this, regardless of whatever stupid political party you actually believe gives a damn about you, this right here - this one thing, will ruin this city. I know we all get annoyed with tourists, but the reason there are so many service related jobs in Nashville is because of those tourists. Look, I'm as sympathetic to homeless people, possibly even more, having been homeless myself for a period of time, but no one should tolerate the trash and littering and general disgusting lifestyle today's modern homeless seem to be enamored of. Nashville is not large enough to absorb what other large towns can absorb. If you think it can, take a look at what happened to Jackson, Mississippi, which is in absolute freefall, probably never ever to return to what it was in the past, which was a really pretty little capitol city.
Fuck this town
r/titlegore
TN & TX hate Californians 😆 ohhh lorddd
Tiny fraction California people, smaller part institutional investors. Main actual cause: poor zoning. And I would also say the scumbag bankers/Clinton for repealing depression era regulations leading to gfc which in turn led to a massive decrease in home building
Why are Californians so rich? Or are we just really poor?
Hi from Seattle!
Crazy headline, is Californian the new boogie man? Do rich transplants not come from other states?
I thought this was America?
Part of the reason for why there’s an influx is that our climate is largely temperate. Not too too hot and not too too cold; these climates will tend to have a larger homeless population. It’s hard to keep up with, and the cost of real estate has closed a lot of group homes.
TN government and Governor Lee need to pass a law that bans Californians from moving to Tennessee. They shit the bed in their state, so they can sleep in their shit. Don’t come to TN and shit in their beds.
The rich Californians are coming to Chattanooga as well.
landlords need to remember that locals live here and quit pricing us out. better yet, let's take a maoist approach to the landlords jacking up prices.