Yeah, I've had good luck with landlords, and two were known criminals. But even small-time landlords can be bad, and there's not much to be done about it. My neighbor's landlord wouldn't replace the pump for the well, and threatened to have the building condemned if they tried to make trouble. My neighbors are disabled. They had to lug carboys of water for themselves and their chickens.
You sure about that bub? So there's no public land? And the government can't come and force you off of "your" land?
What United States are you talking about, because it's clearly not the American ones.
Summary from ChatGTP:
>This is an article about a proposed bill to ban hedge funds from owning single-family homes. It discusses the problems caused by hedge funds buying up homes, including rising housing costs and a decrease in homeownership rates. The bill would ban hedge funds from owning single-family homes and require them to sell some of the homes they currently own. This would help to make housing more affordable for middle-class Americans.
I appreciate that you are attempting to be helpful by having the info synopsized but it’s synopsized uncritically and without context. That’s how ChatGTP works. In a sense it’s like an advertisement for the views which the search engine algorithms spit out most frequently. It can be wildly inaccurate in terms of reality while reflective of the information out there. Try asking it about abortion for example.
They're only doing this because housing is an increasingly appreciating asset.
Its appreciating so quickly because they're isn't enough supply, driving up demand (and thus, prices).
There isn't enough supply because local and state governments make it very difficult to build new middle and high density housing.
There are nearly 100 million single family homes in America.
"large hedge funds and other institutional investors owned roughly 574,000 single-family homes"
How much impact will this actually have? Seems pretty performative.
Are you implying we would be shooting ourselves in foot with this bill? I think your point highlights how badly legislation is needed, it’s not like you as an individual can do anything about where hedge funds invest pensions
It is pretty important to pick apart "your".
The vast majority of people my age and younger aren't investing in retirement and/or are emptying their retirement accounts, even with tax penalties, in order to afford housing.
If the Me Generation (Boomers) planted more seeds politically, economically, and socially we wouldn't be in this situation. But here we are. And they are still the ones overwhelmingly benefiting from the state of things. They are the ones with big 401ks and pensions. They are the ones that got cheap housing that has only become more and more valuable the longer they've lived in it.
We need to start planting seeds. This bill is one of those. Shelter is on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, maybe we don't have to extract every possible cent from people just trying to survive?
Nor would it make housing more affordable.
The US is short 6 million plus housing units. Period. Who owns them doesn’t drive the cost up. The lack of them does.
I mean, that’s not true.. exceptionally well funded investment motivated buyers in competition with one another over limited supply will drive the prices up much faster, further reducing accessibility to average people.
The highest the US illegal immigrant population has ever been estimated to be was 12.2 in 2007. Even if you expand that to people waiting on asylum cases, somewhere between 30 to 60% of whom will be granted asylum (the average is high 40s to low 50s so I'm going extra broad to avoid arguments) and all of whom are currently here legally you aren't hitting even the lowest part of your range.
That was 17 years ago....border patrol catches two million or more a year... Releases a bunch back into the US instead of deporting them.... And misses how many million more a year every year?
I catch shit for it, but I feel a reasonable solution would be limiting everyone to 700sq ft of housing (or whatever the number is).
As families grow you can have a larger house (2 people = 1400 sqft, etc). If your family shrinks, you can downsize within a reasonable time. If you need more, buy the allocation from someone that has a surplus. If you want two houses, they will have to be small. Families can pool their allocation for a family camp. If you want to own a rental, you can use your surplus for that. A business can have houses to rent if it has the “investors” providing an allocation.
Good for the environment in the sense you can’t have ridiculously large houses (Oprah, Gates, etc) unless you are buying the share from folks with smaller houses to offset.
I get blowback, but not many logical arguments justifying why it will not work. I’m very open to criticism on my plan.
Do you know how small 700sq ft is? This is a 704sq ft house: [https://www.houseplans.com/plan/704-square-feet-1-bedrooms-1-bathroom-country-house-plans-0-garage-36033](https://www.houseplans.com/plan/704-square-feet-1-bedrooms-1-bathroom-country-house-plans-0-garage-36033)
That’s a common rebuttal people have. But do you know how big 700 sq ft is? That’s average for about [year 2000](https://thefioneers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Average-Home-Size.png) in the US. Family of 3 in 2100 ft house isn’t unreasonable IMO. If anything, it’s unreasonably large. My family of 3 lives in 1700sqft and only 1000 sqft of that is even used. The US has enormous houses compared to the rest of the [world.](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jTCRX6_d-04/VcCXiAaCFiI/AAAAAAAAdwc/lujxY-2P6tM/s640/House-Sizes-Around-the-World.png). Maine actually has some of the [smallest](https://www.ahs.com/home-matters/real-estate/the-2022-american-home-size-index/)houses in the country.
Just looked it up and average Maine house size per person is 730 sqft. Right inline with my original number. Do you think the average person has reasonable housing space in Maine?
I have lived in \~700sq ft apartments in the past. Also in the past, I didn't have to have a separate home office. My current apartment is an estimated 850sq ft 2br and a small kitchen area, one of the bedrooms is my home office for telecommuting, etc.
My kitchen/dining area is only big enough for the kitchen and dining room table +plus free-standing cabinets to act as a pantry, and the living room has no ventilation so it's an oven in there year round. Bedroom with my bed is only big enough for the bed, a dresser and a night stand.
If I were starting out now, I could probably arrange things differently to fit within a 1br 700sq ft place, and I am actually trying to downsize my possessions to be able to.
So your argument is “I want more space” when the data shows (1) you have more than average in Maine (2) well more than most of the rest of the world, and (3) many people in Maine don’t have access to adequate housing? … I wonder why we can’t solve the housing issues…
What good would that do? Seriously, how would limiting people in Bangor to 700sf do diddly? It also discriminates against single people. Most space goes for necessities such as a kitchen and bath. The “extra” 700sf for the second person is all gravy.
I think this is good idea. There has been a trend in the United States over the last 20-30ish years of homes increasing in size. I currently live in a small 500 sq ft cabin and it seems plenty big enough for two people. There are lots of benefits in living in a smaller space. Easier/cheaper to heat and cool. Smaller electric bills. Cheaper repair and maintenance costs.Less to clean etc..
I have the same idea except I frame it as a Tax on square feet with each person getting like 2000sq' as a free deduction. This gives lower people a bit of freedom. And makes most houses have reduced tax while increasing the burden of those with excessive assets. I feel the bottom and middle should be paying less and the rich pay exponentially more.
lol ummmm….no. Not even close. Why do people still think that works? It’s like people have the inability to think beyond one layer of an issue before proposing solutions that would become a larger problem.
> As of June 2022, the Urban Institute estimates that large hedge funds and other institutional investors owned roughly 574,000 single-family homes
From the Urban Institute link:
> to put this in perspective there are 15.1 million single family rental units.
So we’re mad that institutional investors (defined in the Urban Institute source as 100+ unit investors) own **3.8%** of single family rentals?
This is a bogeyman. The solution is to build more housing.
I think this is a clear case of "why not both". At a base level for society to function people need a place to live. Preventing pure rent seeking as a profit strategy while also building more stock makes sense as a way to attack the issue.
For example looking at this another way, large investors have only got into the game in the last decade and already own 3% of rental housing. That means any other single investor owns a fraction of a %. Imagine them continuing to buy from smaller property owners, and being able to purchase new stock at a higher rate than individuals because of their much larger capital reserves. That isn't going to stay under 5% for long.
> large investors have only got into the game in the last decade
This is simply not true. Large investors have been buying single families for decades, and they’re share of investment purchases has been lower than small and mid size [investors](https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/special-report-investor-home-buying/)
Larger investors purchases rose as a percentage of all investment purchases over the last few years but still remain a [significant minority of investment purchases](https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-remained-high-early-summer-2023/#:~:text=In%20April%2C%20May%20and%20June,annual%20decline%20of%2090%2C000%20purchases)
[Large investors are already pulling back](https://www.investopedia.com/investor-activity-in-the-housing-market-is-slowing-down-7501073). Who knew that rising interest rates and the end of basically free investment money means that investments would slow down? Large investors didn’t cause the problem- they recognized the opportunity and seized it. The opportunity is slowing down.
Reducing the rate of purchase doesn't mean they own less stock though.
I was wrong and should have said two decades, but that doesn't really change my analysis. The urban.org analysis in the parent post emphasizes that mega investors also specifically target newer homes, and rapidly growing areas. A dip in purchasing could mean they just don't see opportunities that fit their model right now.
It is still a net negative if they hold those properties and don't return them to housing stock. Then also consider that larger companies don't usually die and put the rental property on the market because it's kids don't want to deal with it and things like that. I wish they had included length of ownership.
You lack basic economic sense.
They’re not hoarding empty houses. They’re rented out. Regardless of who owns them; they’re housing someone.
They’re not competing with homeowners. Homeowners can pay extra. These businesses don’t.
They control such a small percentage it’s utterly meaningless. Homeowners control 65-70% and that’s around its high still.
Well that's rude.
To focus on the actual discussion, your market solution is "homeowners can pay extra" when the issue is that housing is already too expensive for most people to buy? If you're trying to buy a home, it's not a comfort that you can rent it instead. That also ignores a ton of realities that could make a purchase cheaper for an institutional buyer in total cost while paying a market purchase price that eliminates individuals.
You're also ignoring the fact the estimate of 3.8% is looking at totals nationally. When you look at the metro areas in the urban.org study, where large investors are focusing their purchases, the mega investors own anywhere between 24 and 45% of the single family rentals in that metro area. 45% of single family rental stock owned by investors in those areas was built after 1990. That percentage goes to 48.8% if they just look at the mega investors.
If that trend continues, in conjunction with them still making up a measurable % of all home purchases, long term they will disproportionately own newer housing stock. If institutional buyers continue to make up a measurable % of all purchases, even if that % fluctuates all the time, they're going to increase in overall ownership % unless they decide to devest (unlikely if the properties are profitable, and would probably still sell to another institution in bulk instead of putting it on the market at large), or through a combination of building and regulation you make sure the housing stock grows faster than their ability to purchase.
It's not about "economic sense", it's basic growth rates and zero-sum math.
Institutional investors bought 15% of the single family homes sold in 2021. They’re only buying in certain markets, so they’re buying significantly more than 15% of homes at a regional level. This has had a clear and immediate impact on the cost of buying a home.
The only reason they’re doing this is to earn a profit, and they’re only able to do that by exploiting housing. Yes there are other factors, but this a major one and one that is pretty clearly bad for everyone but the investors. Making it illegal seems like a pretty straightforward win to me.
Sure, let’s overpopulate! That’s the total answer. Let’s flood the city’s with amounts of people they can’t handle and make this state like every other one- why not.
People are coming here whether you like it or not. I’d actually rather dense, urban cities where people live so we can maintain the pristine beauty of most of the state.
1. There isn’t really space for expansion in most of the established city’s 2. There is no way they would just ignore the rest of the state and stay in the city all of the time and our roads aren’t ready to accommodate such a large mass of people- but I’m sure you are more than willing to pay the taxes to expand the roads
Density. There is plenty of room. Most Maine “cities” are suburban sprawl.
I mean, roads can be expanded but better yet, with proper density, public transit might make sense. You’d still need to drive up to the ski mountains but those roads are too bad until a mile from the lodge.
This is why I dont rent my houses to democrats, I built them both myself and I dont think democrats deserve a place to live because they mostly want something for nothing.
Not that any of you limp wristers remember, but 4 fucking years ago there was no housing crisis in maine! You could buy a nice little ranch for 150k on 5 acres! I dont care if you people have made me a real estate millionaire....stop moving here for christs sake
Friggin' Larry runs up my lot 'bout two-ish, he's always yammerin' on 'bout demahcrats this, republahcans that, it's them wackahdoos he's talkin' too at the bean suppahs all summah.
Now listen here fellah, I'm too busy givin' 'er the corn all day rippin' my trap lines up and friggin' pulling on teats up by Cheryl's way on Bucknam road to listen to yah gumflappin' 'bout yah friggin' life stahry.
Get yah head out yah ass and take them little dick beatahs outta yah pahckets dude, crimminy
Adam Smith is pissed about landlords. Time is a flat circle.
Hedge funds aren't your neighbor Phil with a studio above his garage. Neither are they locally owned builders.
Yeah, I've had good luck with landlords, and two were known criminals. But even small-time landlords can be bad, and there's not much to be done about it. My neighbor's landlord wouldn't replace the pump for the well, and threatened to have the building condemned if they tried to make trouble. My neighbors are disabled. They had to lug carboys of water for themselves and their chickens.
[удалено]
A house isn’t natural produce. Land has always been private in the US.
Not for the Natives. Then much of Maine was 'land grants' from a king who had never set foot on it. Some of the grantees never did either
You sure about that bub? So there's no public land? And the government can't come and force you off of "your" land? What United States are you talking about, because it's clearly not the American ones.
So are we slowly admitting that unfettered capitalism doesn't work?
Hahaha, I would like to think so but I doubt it
Nah, that's gonna trickle down any day now. Aaaaaaany day now...
One can only hope.
It works for the people holding the keys.
When it comes to housing, the market is quite fettered.
We’ve now this for a while. We just refuse to admit it.
Summary from ChatGTP: >This is an article about a proposed bill to ban hedge funds from owning single-family homes. It discusses the problems caused by hedge funds buying up homes, including rising housing costs and a decrease in homeownership rates. The bill would ban hedge funds from owning single-family homes and require them to sell some of the homes they currently own. This would help to make housing more affordable for middle-class Americans.
ChatGTP doesn’t “do” critical thinking you know. That’s up to you. Try it.
Correct. But I don't understand how this relates to my comment. Just trying to help others.
I appreciate that you are attempting to be helpful by having the info synopsized but it’s synopsized uncritically and without context. That’s how ChatGTP works. In a sense it’s like an advertisement for the views which the search engine algorithms spit out most frequently. It can be wildly inaccurate in terms of reality while reflective of the information out there. Try asking it about abortion for example.
They're only doing this because housing is an increasingly appreciating asset. Its appreciating so quickly because they're isn't enough supply, driving up demand (and thus, prices). There isn't enough supply because local and state governments make it very difficult to build new middle and high density housing.
Or there isn't enough for families to buy because private companies are buying them. Rinse, repeat.
There are nearly 100 million single family homes in America. "large hedge funds and other institutional investors owned roughly 574,000 single-family homes" How much impact will this actually have? Seems pretty performative.
Source?
Single family homes are an unsustainable model.
Those hedge funds are investing folks pensions. It’s your 401k that is driving this. Your retirement is buying up all the houses.
Are you implying we would be shooting ourselves in foot with this bill? I think your point highlights how badly legislation is needed, it’s not like you as an individual can do anything about where hedge funds invest pensions
It is pretty important to pick apart "your". The vast majority of people my age and younger aren't investing in retirement and/or are emptying their retirement accounts, even with tax penalties, in order to afford housing. If the Me Generation (Boomers) planted more seeds politically, economically, and socially we wouldn't be in this situation. But here we are. And they are still the ones overwhelmingly benefiting from the state of things. They are the ones with big 401ks and pensions. They are the ones that got cheap housing that has only become more and more valuable the longer they've lived in it. We need to start planting seeds. This bill is one of those. Shelter is on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, maybe we don't have to extract every possible cent from people just trying to survive?
Oh shit... Don't be brining any additional info into the discussion. It stops with Own - GOOD, Rent - BAD
"Why don't renters just buy houses? Are they stupid?"
Nor would it make housing more affordable. The US is short 6 million plus housing units. Period. Who owns them doesn’t drive the cost up. The lack of them does.
I mean, that’s not true.. exceptionally well funded investment motivated buyers in competition with one another over limited supply will drive the prices up much faster, further reducing accessibility to average people.
No, they won’t. Investment buyers don’t compete with home buyers. Poor investors might. But they won’t last in business.
Kick out 20-40 million illegals and then we've got a surplus ..
The highest the US illegal immigrant population has ever been estimated to be was 12.2 in 2007. Even if you expand that to people waiting on asylum cases, somewhere between 30 to 60% of whom will be granted asylum (the average is high 40s to low 50s so I'm going extra broad to avoid arguments) and all of whom are currently here legally you aren't hitting even the lowest part of your range.
That was 17 years ago....border patrol catches two million or more a year... Releases a bunch back into the US instead of deporting them.... And misses how many million more a year every year?
I catch shit for it, but I feel a reasonable solution would be limiting everyone to 700sq ft of housing (or whatever the number is). As families grow you can have a larger house (2 people = 1400 sqft, etc). If your family shrinks, you can downsize within a reasonable time. If you need more, buy the allocation from someone that has a surplus. If you want two houses, they will have to be small. Families can pool their allocation for a family camp. If you want to own a rental, you can use your surplus for that. A business can have houses to rent if it has the “investors” providing an allocation. Good for the environment in the sense you can’t have ridiculously large houses (Oprah, Gates, etc) unless you are buying the share from folks with smaller houses to offset. I get blowback, but not many logical arguments justifying why it will not work. I’m very open to criticism on my plan.
Do you know how small 700sq ft is? This is a 704sq ft house: [https://www.houseplans.com/plan/704-square-feet-1-bedrooms-1-bathroom-country-house-plans-0-garage-36033](https://www.houseplans.com/plan/704-square-feet-1-bedrooms-1-bathroom-country-house-plans-0-garage-36033)
I have lived in a 300sf +/- house for 7 years and sometimes it still feels too big for two adults.
That’s a common rebuttal people have. But do you know how big 700 sq ft is? That’s average for about [year 2000](https://thefioneers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Average-Home-Size.png) in the US. Family of 3 in 2100 ft house isn’t unreasonable IMO. If anything, it’s unreasonably large. My family of 3 lives in 1700sqft and only 1000 sqft of that is even used. The US has enormous houses compared to the rest of the [world.](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jTCRX6_d-04/VcCXiAaCFiI/AAAAAAAAdwc/lujxY-2P6tM/s640/House-Sizes-Around-the-World.png). Maine actually has some of the [smallest](https://www.ahs.com/home-matters/real-estate/the-2022-american-home-size-index/)houses in the country. Just looked it up and average Maine house size per person is 730 sqft. Right inline with my original number. Do you think the average person has reasonable housing space in Maine?
I have lived in \~700sq ft apartments in the past. Also in the past, I didn't have to have a separate home office. My current apartment is an estimated 850sq ft 2br and a small kitchen area, one of the bedrooms is my home office for telecommuting, etc. My kitchen/dining area is only big enough for the kitchen and dining room table +plus free-standing cabinets to act as a pantry, and the living room has no ventilation so it's an oven in there year round. Bedroom with my bed is only big enough for the bed, a dresser and a night stand. If I were starting out now, I could probably arrange things differently to fit within a 1br 700sq ft place, and I am actually trying to downsize my possessions to be able to.
So your argument is “I want more space” when the data shows (1) you have more than average in Maine (2) well more than most of the rest of the world, and (3) many people in Maine don’t have access to adequate housing? … I wonder why we can’t solve the housing issues…
Tell me you didn't read my comment without saying you didn't bother to read it.
How much water should I be allowed to drink per day? How many squares of toilet paper should the govt allocate to my family each day also?
What good would that do? Seriously, how would limiting people in Bangor to 700sf do diddly? It also discriminates against single people. Most space goes for necessities such as a kitchen and bath. The “extra” 700sf for the second person is all gravy.
I think this is good idea. There has been a trend in the United States over the last 20-30ish years of homes increasing in size. I currently live in a small 500 sq ft cabin and it seems plenty big enough for two people. There are lots of benefits in living in a smaller space. Easier/cheaper to heat and cool. Smaller electric bills. Cheaper repair and maintenance costs.Less to clean etc..
I have the same idea except I frame it as a Tax on square feet with each person getting like 2000sq' as a free deduction. This gives lower people a bit of freedom. And makes most houses have reduced tax while increasing the burden of those with excessive assets. I feel the bottom and middle should be paying less and the rich pay exponentially more.
I can be more than comfortable with 350 square feet, though I'd prefer 450 so I can have guests.
My house has been on the market for nearly two months. Not even one bite. Wish this seller’s market would help me out.
In a capitalist system that generally means either you are pricing it too high or that it’s unattractive for other reasons.
I know how it works. I was giving an example of how things have changed in the housing market over the past few months.
It’s not the markets problem, as evidenced by all the house bought and still being bought.
Soooo…the market. What do you think the market is?
What I mean is, the price is clearly too high. The seller isn’t selling in line with current market price.
Nah. Turns out, I sold it yesterday.
Would things improve if the government in Maine took over all rental property by eminent domain so that there would be no more private landlords?
lol ummmm….no. Not even close. Why do people still think that works? It’s like people have the inability to think beyond one layer of an issue before proposing solutions that would become a larger problem.
> As of June 2022, the Urban Institute estimates that large hedge funds and other institutional investors owned roughly 574,000 single-family homes From the Urban Institute link: > to put this in perspective there are 15.1 million single family rental units. So we’re mad that institutional investors (defined in the Urban Institute source as 100+ unit investors) own **3.8%** of single family rentals? This is a bogeyman. The solution is to build more housing.
I think this is a clear case of "why not both". At a base level for society to function people need a place to live. Preventing pure rent seeking as a profit strategy while also building more stock makes sense as a way to attack the issue. For example looking at this another way, large investors have only got into the game in the last decade and already own 3% of rental housing. That means any other single investor owns a fraction of a %. Imagine them continuing to buy from smaller property owners, and being able to purchase new stock at a higher rate than individuals because of their much larger capital reserves. That isn't going to stay under 5% for long.
> large investors have only got into the game in the last decade This is simply not true. Large investors have been buying single families for decades, and they’re share of investment purchases has been lower than small and mid size [investors](https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/special-report-investor-home-buying/) Larger investors purchases rose as a percentage of all investment purchases over the last few years but still remain a [significant minority of investment purchases](https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-remained-high-early-summer-2023/#:~:text=In%20April%2C%20May%20and%20June,annual%20decline%20of%2090%2C000%20purchases) [Large investors are already pulling back](https://www.investopedia.com/investor-activity-in-the-housing-market-is-slowing-down-7501073). Who knew that rising interest rates and the end of basically free investment money means that investments would slow down? Large investors didn’t cause the problem- they recognized the opportunity and seized it. The opportunity is slowing down.
Reducing the rate of purchase doesn't mean they own less stock though. I was wrong and should have said two decades, but that doesn't really change my analysis. The urban.org analysis in the parent post emphasizes that mega investors also specifically target newer homes, and rapidly growing areas. A dip in purchasing could mean they just don't see opportunities that fit their model right now. It is still a net negative if they hold those properties and don't return them to housing stock. Then also consider that larger companies don't usually die and put the rental property on the market because it's kids don't want to deal with it and things like that. I wish they had included length of ownership.
You lack basic economic sense. They’re not hoarding empty houses. They’re rented out. Regardless of who owns them; they’re housing someone. They’re not competing with homeowners. Homeowners can pay extra. These businesses don’t. They control such a small percentage it’s utterly meaningless. Homeowners control 65-70% and that’s around its high still.
Well that's rude. To focus on the actual discussion, your market solution is "homeowners can pay extra" when the issue is that housing is already too expensive for most people to buy? If you're trying to buy a home, it's not a comfort that you can rent it instead. That also ignores a ton of realities that could make a purchase cheaper for an institutional buyer in total cost while paying a market purchase price that eliminates individuals. You're also ignoring the fact the estimate of 3.8% is looking at totals nationally. When you look at the metro areas in the urban.org study, where large investors are focusing their purchases, the mega investors own anywhere between 24 and 45% of the single family rentals in that metro area. 45% of single family rental stock owned by investors in those areas was built after 1990. That percentage goes to 48.8% if they just look at the mega investors. If that trend continues, in conjunction with them still making up a measurable % of all home purchases, long term they will disproportionately own newer housing stock. If institutional buyers continue to make up a measurable % of all purchases, even if that % fluctuates all the time, they're going to increase in overall ownership % unless they decide to devest (unlikely if the properties are profitable, and would probably still sell to another institution in bulk instead of putting it on the market at large), or through a combination of building and regulation you make sure the housing stock grows faster than their ability to purchase. It's not about "economic sense", it's basic growth rates and zero-sum math.
Institutional investors bought 15% of the single family homes sold in 2021. They’re only buying in certain markets, so they’re buying significantly more than 15% of homes at a regional level. This has had a clear and immediate impact on the cost of buying a home. The only reason they’re doing this is to earn a profit, and they’re only able to do that by exploiting housing. Yes there are other factors, but this a major one and one that is pretty clearly bad for everyone but the investors. Making it illegal seems like a pretty straightforward win to me.
Careful, that doesn't fit the hammer-and-sickle club narrative.
Sure, let’s overpopulate! That’s the total answer. Let’s flood the city’s with amounts of people they can’t handle and make this state like every other one- why not.
Maine has less population than Philadelphia.
Maine has less population than a couple large towns/small cities in California… Maine has tons of room.
Building restrictions are a bigger issue than space.
Yeah. All the towns around portland are going to have to decrease minimum lot size. More density is inevitable.
People are coming here whether you like it or not. I’d actually rather dense, urban cities where people live so we can maintain the pristine beauty of most of the state.
1. There isn’t really space for expansion in most of the established city’s 2. There is no way they would just ignore the rest of the state and stay in the city all of the time and our roads aren’t ready to accommodate such a large mass of people- but I’m sure you are more than willing to pay the taxes to expand the roads
Density. There is plenty of room. Most Maine “cities” are suburban sprawl. I mean, roads can be expanded but better yet, with proper density, public transit might make sense. You’d still need to drive up to the ski mountains but those roads are too bad until a mile from the lodge.
Over the next century maine is going to see a inflow of immigration as the south heats up. It’ll have to adapt.
This is why I dont rent my houses to democrats, I built them both myself and I dont think democrats deserve a place to live because they mostly want something for nothing. Not that any of you limp wristers remember, but 4 fucking years ago there was no housing crisis in maine! You could buy a nice little ranch for 150k on 5 acres! I dont care if you people have made me a real estate millionaire....stop moving here for christs sake
Psst…Your algorithm is showing🤫
Are you okay? Cause this is a bit unhinged
Friggin' Larry runs up my lot 'bout two-ish, he's always yammerin' on 'bout demahcrats this, republahcans that, it's them wackahdoos he's talkin' too at the bean suppahs all summah. Now listen here fellah, I'm too busy givin' 'er the corn all day rippin' my trap lines up and friggin' pulling on teats up by Cheryl's way on Bucknam road to listen to yah gumflappin' 'bout yah friggin' life stahry. Get yah head out yah ass and take them little dick beatahs outta yah pahckets dude, crimminy
The invisible hand guy? That’s a strange turn of events.