26% of Fort Worth’s single family homes are owned by companies

[crash_davis 23113]

American dream is disappearing for the younger generation.

 

https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article288911228.html

Roughly one out of every four single family homes in Fort Worth are owned by an investor, company or corporation, according to a city analysis of data from the Tarrant Appraisal District.

The city’s report is just an estimate, because data from the appraisal district doesn’t specify if a home is owned by a company or individual. However, the city was able to make an approximation using information about tax exemptions, owner names and addresses.

The city classified owner-occupied homes as those with a homestead exemption, homes where the owner’s address matched the property address, and the owner’s name didn’t include terms like LLC, LTD, Inc., or trust.

Commercially owned properties were defined as those without a homestead exemption, owner names containing the previously mentioned terms, and those where the owner’s address didn’t match the property address.

Using those classifications, the city found that 64,372 of the 247,485 single family homes, or 26%, in Fort Worth were owned by a corporation or company.

 

 

[Rimbo 25935]

Need to make corporate ownership of single family homes illegal. There's just no good reason for that.

[mdmost 43001]

Put this in the enshitting thread because it certainly applies. 

[crash_davis 23113]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Need to make corporate ownership of single family homes illegal. There's just no good reason for that.

Jesus loves capitalism, bro.

[Rimbo 25935]

Just now, crash_davis said:

Jesus loves capitalism, bro.

Jesus de Polanco does, I'm sure.

[Foosters 17856]

 

[Michael Knight 12977]

6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Need to make corporate ownership of single family homes illegal. There's just no good reason for that.

you sound like one of them commies who hates 'merica

[crash_davis 23113]

6 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

you sound like one of them commies who hates 'merica

and Jesus de Polanco

[Rimbo 25935]

Just now, Michael Knight said:

you sound like one of them commies who hates 'merica

 

Exactly what value does the business provide? The answer is none. That's a cornerstone of capitalism: You offer a product or service. All they're doing here is price controls... hey wait, THAT sounds like communism! So ACKSHUALLY, I'm being anti-commie here, and it's these corporations that are the REAL communists!

[KYHorn 17058]

7 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

American dream is disappearing for the younger generation.

 

https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article288911228.html

Roughly one out of every four single family homes in Fort Worth are owned by an investor, company or corporation, according to a city analysis of data from the Tarrant Appraisal District.

The city’s report is just an estimate, because data from the appraisal district doesn’t specify if a home is owned by a company or individual. However, the city was able to make an approximation using information about tax exemptions, owner names and addresses.

The city classified owner-occupied homes as those with a homestead exemption, homes where the owner’s address matched the property address, and the owner’s name didn’t include terms like LLC, LTD, Inc., or trust.

Commercially owned properties were defined as those without a homestead exemption, owner names containing the previously mentioned terms, and those where the owner’s address didn’t match the property address.

Using those classifications, the city found that 64,372 of the 247,485 single family homes, or 26%, in Fort Worth were owned by a corporation or company.

 

 

It's definitely a problem, but they admitted this number likely included investors who own one or a few rental homes: 

Quote

It did note some of the commercial owners were Fort Worth residents who may own a handfull of investment properties in addition to their own home.

I also didn't love the way the article was written. They define owner-occupied homes but don't mention it anywhere else, so are they just using it as a binary owner-occupied vs commercially owned? If so, where do the individual investors who don't have LLCs but just own under their own name and don't live at the address (meeting 2/3 of the criteria for "commercially owned") get lumped? That makes me wonder if the "AND" in the "commercially owned" inclusion criteria was actually used as an OR. On the other hand, perhaps they had additional categories that aren't being defined here, in which case, the only caveats that need to be addressed are the individual investors who are protecting themselves using an LLC for a couple of houses, and the fact that many homes are passed on to children through trusts for any number of reasons but are not commercially owned in the way they seem to be indicated. A better breakdown is needed, but I agree that corporate ownership is a problem that needs to be addressed. My understanding is that is was particularly bad in the first 2 years of COVID.

[Michael Knight 12977]

7 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Exactly what value does the business provide? The answer is none. That's a cornerstone of capitalism: You offer a product or service. All they're doing here is price controls... hey wait, THAT sounds like communism! So ACKSHUALLY, I'm being anti-commie here, and it's these corporations that are the REAL communists!

the cornerstone of capitalism is controlling capital, providing value has nothing to do with it. maybe in the past, much like feudalism did in its time, it provided a benefit to society but that time is quickly coming to an end.

[Rimbo 25935]

13 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

the cornerstone of capitalism is controlling capital, providing value has nothing to do with it. maybe in the past, much like feudalism did in its time, it provided a benefit to society but that time is quickly coming to an end.

Bah, now THIS is propaganda. Capitalism was always about providing a product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is uneducated.

[Michael Knight 12977]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Bah, now THIS is propaganda. Capitalism was always about providing a product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is uneducated.

capitalism was about providing wealth to individuals, it just so happens they did so by providing a product or service. now capitalism is about buying a company, saddling them with debt, selling all their assets, and then dumping them off.

[crash_davis 23113]

I like capitalism which socializes the losses but privatizes the profits. That's the best capitalism.

[Rimbo 25935]

10 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

capitalism was about providing wealth to individuals, it just so happens they did so by providing a product or service. now capitalism is about buying a company, saddling them with debt, selling all their assets, and then dumping them off.

Look, the whole reason the laissez-faire dipshits and the ayn rand fuckers do what they do is because capitalism, when it works, provides a win-win scenario to everyone; their flaw is that they think it always does.

The dumbassery YOU are espousing here is the equal and opposite newtonian drivel; it's no less naive, and no more deserving of serious consideration.

Every system that works does a combination of social services and regulated capitalism; you apply capitalism when the profit motive benefits the public good (which is most of the time) and socialize when it creates perverse incentives (jails, healthcare, etc), and regulate it so that there are rules.

this ain't nam, there are rules

[Captainant 27668]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Every system that works does a combination of social services and regulated capitalism; you apply capitalism when the profit motive benefits the public good (which is most of the time) and socialize when it creates perverse incentives (jails, healthcare, etc), and regulate it so that there are rules.

this ain't nam, there are rules

What the fuck are you talking about? Healthcare and prisons are massive fucking profit centers for private equity, and regulations have been slashed for literal decades leaving us with an "anything goes" flavor of capitalism where companies can spill tons of dangerous chemicals over a neighborhood and face zero repercussions for their decision makers that chose to not mitigate known risks. 

We absolutely do not have a well regulated and moderated version of capitalism in America. It's for the shareholders, by the shareholders, and of the shareholders. Customers and employees can go get bent.

Today's capitalism is solely about making line go up, and there is ZERO idea of social good involved as you do your Pollyanna impression

Edited June 4 by Captainant

[Wally Fairway 5549]

57 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Need to make corporate ownership of single family homes illegal. There's just no good reason for that.

so owning rental property should be illegal?
from my experience almost all the homes around a campus, are student rentals
I know several individuals who own rental homes, almost all are through an LLC; some as a side business, a couple as their main job
 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

Ban short-term rentals, and this problem takes care of itself.   Charge triple the property tax rate on corporate-owned homes just to give it the final kick in the pants.

People who like to invest in rental properties have lots of other options.

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, Wally Fairway said:

so owning rental property should be illegal?
from my experience almost all the homes around a campus, are student rentals
I know several individuals who own rental homes, almost all are through an LLC; some as a side business, a couple as their main job
 

As noted above, I think that most folks would be fine with a policy that allowed for individuals/LLCs to own homes on a small scale.  It's massive increases in large capital ownership that really took off in just the last 10-15 years that has skewed the market.

It's enough of an issue that even our GQP state leadership is examining it for possible action.  So, I'll say this....Texas cities should steer clear of the issue right now.  Because as much as our state leadership HATES cities, if a city even thought about regulating large-scale ownership of S.F. homes, our state leadership would react by doing something asinine like REQUIRING that all homes be owned by large capital outfits.  

[RDCanecutter 26442]

I wonder how many tents would fit inside a corporate-owned rental house. You'd need to bulk up the plumbing.

[Brisketexan 105139]

23 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I wonder how many tents would fit inside a corporate-owned rental house. You'd need to bulk up the plumbing.

Regular tents, or sex tents?

[Gatorubet 30238]

23 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I wonder how many tents would fit inside a corporate-owned rental house. You'd need to bulk up the plumbing.

there is always a workaround

[RDCanecutter 26442]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Regular tents, or sex tents?

Well the whole thing is by default a Fuck Hut, so I guess all the tents are Sexy Regular. Still gotta bulk up the plumbing.

[immamac 42850]

All new homes should be for owner occupancy. After that there is no real fair way to say you can't have rental houses or be forced to sell an asset you once lived in. 

I think without a way to guarantee home supply for those seeking homes to live in this is bad, but otherwise is fine. 

[BabaYaga 15298]

I wonder how many of these were REO properties?  

[troph 24798]

I think we need private equity / venture capital reform tbqh. not sure they should be in health care, single family housing, prisons, I'm sure there's a few others.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

[BabaYaga 15298]

9 minutes ago, troph said:

I think we need private equity / venture capital reform tbqh. not sure they should be in health care, single family housing, prisons, I'm sure there's a few others.

They follow returns like every other vulture out there.  It was only a matter of time.  

[troph 24798]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

They follow returns like every other vulture out there.  It was only a matter of time.  

yep. regulated capitalism. if the PE/VC firms out there are interfering in a way that is overly problematic to the greater society then you regulate their activity. Assets under management, publicly traded, there are a few ways to get the Blackrock's out of markets/industries that have importance beyond profiteering.

[Gatorubet 30238]

47 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I wonder how many of these were REO properties?  

Roll with the changes?

[Ted Lange 16085]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

I wonder how many of these were REO properties?  

I know it hurts to say goodbye
But it's time for me to buy

[Rex Kramer 1338]

3 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

so owning rental property should be illegal?
from my experience almost all the homes around a campus, are student rentals
I know several individuals who own rental homes, almost all are through an LLC; some as a side business, a couple as their main job
 

The outrage around a poorly written article and naïveté on full display in this thread are hilarious. 

[TonyTexas 10512]

Doesn’t the additional demand from these “vultures “ mean higher prices to the public sellers? And wouldn’t taking them out of the market do the opposite? 

[Brisketexan 105139]

3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

The outrage around a poorly written article and naïveté on full display in this thread are hilarious. 

Except the conversation quickly acknowledged and evolved to discuss the full spectrum of types of home ownership and circumstances of same.  I won't argue about the poorly written nature of the article, even to the extent that it acknowledged those nuances and differences, it's not clear and is short on context.

But I think it's not exactly a secret that the rising percentage of homes being taken up by large capital outfits for either rental or STR is having negative effects on housing affordability and availability.  That is the underlying subject being discussed, and I think the discussion above is a rational and reasonable one by and large.

[mdmost 43001]

This is a known issue

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/15/texas-greg-abbott-institutional-homebuyers/

[Incredulity 11671]

13 minutes ago, TonyTexas said:

Doesn’t the additional demand from these “vultures “ mean higher prices to the public sellers? And wouldn’t taking them out of the market do the opposite? 

You expect the leftists to think about second order effects?  

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

You expect the leftists to think about second order effects?  

Again....noted "leftists" like....Greg Abbott are paying attention to this phenomenon.  What I don't understand is how people like you believe (correctly) that additional regulation can have unintended and significant negative social consequences that require correction.....but refuse to accept that unfettered capitalism (without any regulation) can ALSO have unintended and negative social consequences that require correction.  Any decent policy approach tries to strike the right balance.

[Incredulity 11671]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Again....noted "leftists" like....Greg Abbott are paying attention to this phenomenon.  What I don't understand is how people like you believe (correctly) that additional regulation can have unintended and significant negative social consequences that require correction.....but refuse to accept that unfettered capitalism (without any regulation) can ALSO have unintended and negative social consequences that require correction.  Any decent policy approach tries to strike the right balance.

Maybe the real question should be why this is now a problem?  It certainly isn’t because the debil corporations didn’t have the wherewithal to buy up the domestic housing stock.
 

I’ll take consequences of ZIRP for $2000.00 Alex.

[Dahobbs 17534]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Maybe the real question should be why this is now a problem?  It certainly isn’t because the debil corporations didn’t have the wherewithal to buy up the domestic housing stock.
 

I’ll take consequences of ZIRP for $2000.00 Alex.

??? I feel like you didn't look at the trend lines for the last 25 years. This isn't a new issue, it has been percolating for years. It is almost certainly because labor has captured a smaller and smaller percentage of our increases in productivity. 

[KYHorn 17058]

2 hours ago, troph said:

yep. regulated capitalism. if the PE/VC firms out there are interfering in a way that is overly problematic to the greater society then you regulate their activity. Assets under management, publicly traded, there are a few ways to get the Blackrock's out of markets/industries that have importance beyond profiteering.

 

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except the conversation quickly acknowledged and evolved to discuss the full spectrum of types of home ownership and circumstances of same.  I won't argue about the poorly written nature of the article, even to the extent that it acknowledged those nuances and differences, it's not clear and is short on context.

But I think it's not exactly a secret that the rising percentage of homes being taken up by large capital outfits for either rental or STR is having negative effects on housing affordability and availability.  That is the underlying subject being discussed, and I think the discussion above is a rational and reasonable one by and large.

It's also worth considering why supply hasn't kept up in a way that disincentivizes institutional/corporate interest. An approach that discourages this corporate behavior in the short term but also addresses supply issues for the long term is probably a healthy balance.

[Incredulity 11671]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

??? I feel like you didn't look at the trend lines for the last 25 years. This isn't a new issue, it has been percolating for years. It is almost certainly because labor has captured a smaller and smaller percentage of our increases in productivity. 

How long do you think ZIRP policies that have inflated the current asset bubble have been going on?

House I grew up in increased in value maybe 30% in the 20ish years of my youth.  It’s quintupled in value in the last 20.

[Dahobbs 17534]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

How long do you think ZIRP policies that have inflated the current asset bubble have been going on?

House I grew up in increased in value maybe 30% in the 20ish years of my youth.  It’s quintupled in value in the last 20.

Well, they weren't near zero from 2000 to 2007, and the same trend existed. They went to zero, and the trend didn't change. They aren't zero now, and the trend continues. That might suggest to a rationale person that ZIRP isn't causing this phenomenon. 

[Wally Fairway 5549]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, they weren't near zero from 2000 to 2007, and the same trend existed. They went to zero, and the trend didn't change. They aren't zero now, and the trend continues. That might suggest to a rationale person that ZIRP isn't causing this phenomenon. 

Sorry, this is surly, not a rational soul to be found. Carry on

[tx 3 putt 76957]

5 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Need to make corporate ownership of single family homes illegal. There's just no good reason for that.

Are they renting out these homes or bnb’s ?

Edited June 5 by tx 3 putt

[Incredulity 11671]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, they weren't near zero from 2000 to 2007, and the same trend existed. They went to zero, and the trend didn't change. They aren't zero now, and the trend continues. That might suggest to a rationale person that ZIRP isn't causing this phenomenon. 

**checks notes** 20 years ago is 2004

 The Fed and Federal Government has provided over and over a stop loss in the ZIRP years for assets, why would the corporations unwind their portfolio?  

[Dahobbs 17534]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

**checks notes** 20 years ago is 2004

 The Fed and Federal Government has provided over and over a stop loss in the ZIRP years for assets, why would the corporations unwind their portfolio?  

1) I said 25 years ago (referencing the chart from earlier in this thread). 

2) interests rate weren't near zero in 2004. 

I don't understand your point. 

[Incredulity 11671]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) I said 25 years ago (referencing the chart from earlier in this thread). 

2) interests rate weren't near zero in 2004. 

I don't understand your point. 

You asked why they haven’t sold off their RE assets given the current higher rates.

ZIRP wasn’t the only cause.  It  is significant cause of corporations chasing returns in residential RE.  
 

1.) lack of return opportunities in traditional markets such as debt.(ZIRP)

2.) Nimby development policies limiting supply (inflating prices and return)

3.)  stop-loss government policies that have reduced risk of investment in residential RE.

amongst other causes.

Unringing that bell isn’t going to be as simple as, “banning corporate ownership of residential RE”.

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You asked why they haven’t sold off their RE assets given the current higher rates.

ZIRP wasn’t the only cause.  It  is significant cause of corporations chasing returns in residential RE.  
 

1.) lack of return opportunities in traditional markets such as debt.(ZIRP)

2.) Nimby development policies limiting supply (inflating prices and return)

3.)  stop-loss government policies that have reduced risk of investment in residential RE.

amongst other causes.

Unringing that bell isn’t going to be as simple as, “banning corporate ownership of residential RE”.

 

Again, this trend predates ZIRP. It does however correlate with the lack of real rage growth over the last 50 years. I suggest that is a much more likely casual factor than something like ZIRP, which theoretically should affect investors and homeowners alike. 

[dcbc 14484]

33 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Are they renting out these homes or bnb’s ?

In east Texa, they're renting them out . . . at dumb rates.  We have one next door to us that's owned by someone out of CA whose home can't be seen on Google maps, but who has an unmatched, ocean view, and they (the renters) are "downsizing" and paying through the nose. especially since the buyer's market has steadily dropped since they moved in.

 

They're quiet.  I don't think about them much.

Edited June 5 by dcbc

[troph 24798]

In response to your comment below and the leftist comment above - first just because I made a quick retort earlier doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of robust discussion and policies that address all sides (not both sides), second, come on man, leftists won’t think it through, man you know I’m thoughtful and so are many of the guys here, so that was not really an accurate thing to say, and third, I’m all for profit I think you know that, it doesn’t mean profit should wreck the market with its own unintended consequences and it is and has, so in addition to what you write below considerations including massive corporate buy ups should be considered just like for example CFIUS can block or restrict m&a deals for national strategic interests or the EPA can regulate clean water (sorta) or congress can regulate agency mortgages to ensure stricter underwriting guidelines so the market doesn’t implode again. And quite frankly if congress could do what it was designed to do these robust conversations could take place and good ideas would percolate to the top and get implemented regardless of which side came up with them.

40 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You asked why they haven’t sold off their RE assets given the current higher rates.

ZIRP wasn’t the only cause.  It  is significant cause of corporations chasing returns in residential RE.  
 

1.) lack of return opportunities in traditional markets such as debt.(ZIRP)

2.) Nimby development policies limiting supply (inflating prices and return)

3.)  stop-loss government policies that have reduced risk of investment in residential RE.

amongst other causes.

Unringing that bell isn’t going to be as simple as, “banning corporate ownership of residential RE”.

Edited June 5 by troph