• Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 个月前

    I appreciate the effort, and I think this might be good legislation. Not sure yet, but it’s worth to try and see.

    That said, I don’t really know if house flippers are really “speculators”. I don’t see speculation involved in arguing that a house is worth more after renovation.

    • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 个月前

      The days of “flippers” being “renovators” is long gone. The model now is to buy them for 30% less than they would probably bring on the fair market by straight-up lying and telling homeowners that realtors fees and time lost (ie: doing showings) are equivalent to the difference (they’re not, not by a long shot), then turning around and posting the same goddamn properties (using realtors, natch) at their full market price and clearing the 30%.

      The world is full of impatient idiots, so naturally this is a profitable business model. If you don’t think it’s profitable, then I invite you to look at all the ad money spent on “I’M DICK FUCK THE HOMEBUYER AND I WANT TO BUY YOUR HOME” ads, articles, text messages and spam emails. You can’t spend that kind of money on marketing and not be a goddamn insanely profitable legal scam.

      • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 个月前

        Sounds fair, but negotiating purchases below market values - even if at a grifter level - is still not speculation either. Making a profit off of “impatient idiots” is at best shady arbitrage, it should still be resold near market value anyway.