New thread. Just wanted to see the debate on this issue:
Why not limit "2nd, 3rd, 4th...homes" by dictating that a certain percentage of housing units (or at least SFHs) be owner occupied. Or perhaps dictate that a certain pecentage of homes in a city must be owend by residents of the city.
The effect would be to exclude speculators, home investors, and wealthy out-of-towners from bidding up the price of housing. In the end, the residents of the community who want to buy their only home, which they want to actually live in, can afford to do so.
Such regulation would best be suited for towns that have limited housing stock, but increasing numbers of "out of town second homers" from bidding up housing prices. If the city is based as a vacation destination (like Jersey Shore, parts of FL, and others that are seasonal towns) this wouldn't really apply because they are built on "vacation homes". Or maybe it still might.
Vignette: I worked in Paterson, NJ for a non-profit. We were developing a community-driven Master Plan. In the housing portion of that, we noticed that owner occupancy was nil: about 80% of the housing in the city was owned by out of town landlords who rented the lots. Home owntership was horrible. If we said "hey, from now on, if a house goes on the market, only people who intend to live in that house can buy that house. At least until resident home ownership reaches X percent, and then sustain that level." This would change the market of buyers to keep the price much lower and affordable because speculators and investors (who have more money to throw out there) would not bid up the price. Thus, a home in the ghetto which should cost about $200k or less would not be going for $400k +
My normative argument is that residents who want to buy a home have a right to afford that home BEFORE investors and out-of-towners have a right to buy a second home (or income property) in that community.