On the flip side, I’ve watched investor-owned properties sit empty or get turned into rentals with zero upkeep. That drags the whole block down, especially if the owner’s out-of-state and doesn’t care.
Yeah, I’ve seen that exact thing happen. There’s a street near me where a bunch of houses got scooped up by some LLCs during the pandemic. At first, it looked like they were fixing them up, but then half of them just sat empty for months. The grass got crazy high, trash piled up, and it honestly made the whole area feel sketchier. Meanwhile, the ones that did get rented out had these insane prices—like, way more than what most people around here can afford.
I get the idea of banning big investors, but I’m not convinced it’ll actually help folks like me who are trying to buy their first place. Even when investors aren’t in the mix, there’s just not enough affordable homes. And when you do find something, you’re up against cash offers or people willing to waive every inspection. It’s rough.
I don’t know what the answer is, but it feels like we’re stuck between two bad options: either the neighborhood gets “improved” and regular people can’t afford to stay, or it gets neglected because nobody local owns anything anymore. Maybe some kind of rule where if you buy a single-family home, you have to actually live in it for a couple years? Not sure how you’d enforce that, though.
Anyway, I’m just tired of feeling like I’m competing with people who don’t even want to live here. It’s frustrating when you’re just trying to find a place you can actually afford and call your own.
I hear you on the frustration—empty investor houses can really mess with a neighborhood’s vibe. But I’ll say, not every investor is hands-off or out-of-state. Some actually do solid renovations and keep things in good shape, but yeah, the bad apples stand out. The thing about banning corporate buyers is, who decides what counts as “corporate”? Sometimes it’s just a small local group trying to restore a place that would’ve stayed vacant otherwise.
You mentioned owner-occupancy requirements… those sound good in theory, but enforcing them gets tricky fast. People find loopholes, or just rent to family and call it “owner-occupied.” At the end of the day, there’s gotta be a way to encourage responsible ownership—whether it’s an individual or a company. But if we don’t build more homes or fix up what’s already here, prices are gonna stay nuts no matter who’s buying.
Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. There’s a big difference between a faceless hedge fund scooping up 100 houses and a couple of locals fixing up a place that’s been falling apart for years. Blanket bans just don’t account for that nuance. I’ve seen firsthand how some “corporate” buyers actually stabilize neighborhoods by rehabbing eyesores, but then you’ve got others who let properties sit empty for ages. It’s a mixed bag. Honestly, if we really want to tackle affordability, we need more supply—otherwise, it’s just musical chairs with higher stakes.
I’ve seen both sides of this, honestly. Had a client last year who lost out on a house to a big investment group—they paid cash, no contingencies, and the place sat empty for months. But I’ve also worked with small investors who actually put in the work and improved properties that nobody else wanted. It’s tough to draw a line that’s fair to everyone. More inventory would help, but that’s easier said than done these days...
Honestly, I get where you’re coming from. It’s frustrating when big groups scoop up homes and just let them sit—feels like a waste. But yeah, some small investors really do breathe life into rundown spots. The real issue is just not enough homes to go around... supply’s tight, and that’s not changing overnight.