Connect with us

San Diego, CA

Should Congress bar big investors from buying single-family homes?

Published

on

Should Congress bar big investors from buying single-family homes?


President Donald Trump said recently on social media he would ask Congress to stop large investors and private equity firms from buying single-family homes.

His plan did not have many details but echoed a common refrain across the U.S. that investors should not own homes and that they drive up prices.

Critics have argued the issue is overstated, with an estimated 4% of single-family rentals owned by institutional investors. Studies over the years have routinely shown San Diego County as having one of the lowest rates of institutional investors.

Still, the move is likely to be popular with voters and even stopping some big firms, like Blackstone, from buying properties could make a small difference in the real estate market.

Advertisement

Question: Should Congress bar big investors from buying single-family homes?

Economists

Ray Major, economist

YES: Institutional investors should be banned from owning single-family homes. The American dream is built on homeownership, and every person in the United States should be able to work hard and afford a home. Institutional investors reduce the supply and increase home prices turning potential homeowners into lifelong renters. This, in the long run, will eliminate the average American’s ability to build generational wealth and pass it on to their children.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: Investors have mixed effects on housing affordability. Families who cannot afford to buy benefit from renting in neighborhoods with strong schools. Investors can also stabilize markets during downturns, as they did after the financial crisis when prices collapsed. To improve affordability, limiting ownership by large investors in markets where they have pricing power would make more sense than an all-out ban. And if the goal is to increase housing supply and improve affordability, there are far better tools than investment restrictions.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

Advertisement

NO: The vast majority of single-family rental homes are owned by small to mid-size landlords, less than 5% by large investors. Blaming big firms seems a populous desire to make the administration look like caring about home prices and doing something about affordability, but ignoring real drivers of housing costs and actual problems caused by overregulation, development restrictions and compounding fees. Blaming investors could end up with policies having adverse consequences on home markets altogether.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: Even though institutional investors are a small part of the market, their influence is growing. They are important at the margin, which can have big implications for some communities. By increasing the demand for housing, they cause prices to go up, which leads to housing price inflation as one of the biggest contributors to the elevated overall inflation rate. They can also squeeze out individual buyers, who may have difficulty competing with all-cash offers in a high-interest-rate environment.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: If an investor buys a home and rents it out, that is one less home occupied by an owner and one more home occupied by a renter. This does not change the overall cost of housing. Moreover, the Constitution does not give Congress or the president the power to impose such a rule. This is a local problem, not a national issue. The real solution is to reduce local fees and restrictions on home building.

Advertisement

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: This limit on institutional ownership is symbolic of populous-driven interference in the housing market, and just like rent controls, it is harmful in the long run, inhibiting capital allocation and new supply in the housing market. Home prices and rent levels are overwhelmingly driven by supply-demand fundamentals: i.e. job growth, migration, zoning constraints, NIMBYs and construction levels. Institutions may manage rents more systematically, using dynamic pricing tools and standardized operating procedures — but they do not set the market. They respond to it.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The shortage of affordable single-family homes is primarily due to insufficient new construction. Existing homeowners choosing not to upgrade because they do not want to give up their low-rate mortgage is a contributing factor. Given the relatively small share of single-family homes owned by institutional investors, restricting their purchase of homes will not materially expand the stock of housing available to households or slow price appreciation.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

Advertisement

NO: The issue is not who owns rental properties, but how few there are available. The private sector has found a real estate investment niche and deserves to be able to exploit it. The law of supply and demand says build more housing and the rental prices will collapse. The administration could be opening up thousands of acres of underutilized land across the country for much-needed housing.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: The percentages might be low in terms of numbers of homes purchased by large investors, private equity or other corporate investors. But their purchases do escalate the price of homes by reducing the inventory available for those wishing to purchase homes for their own personal use by private assets. I think this could modestly control the price of homes by increasing availability for private purchasers.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: President Trump proposed banning large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes. The key word “more” suggests a limit, not a sell-off. Instead of an outright ban, Congress could find bipartisan support for assessing a cap on institutional single-family homeownership. A cap could ease competition for first-time buyers, help protect tenants from “mega-landlords” and reduce market concentration. It could also help balance housing affordability, rental supply, and homebuilding impacts.

Advertisement

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: But this is a bit of economic dodgeball because there are relatively few homes held in institutional portfolios in San Diego. I propose legislation that focuses on 1) zoning and land use policies to encourage new housing construction, 2) incentivize senior citizen downsizing by eliminating capital gains tax and 3) allow a one-time pass-through of existing property taxes for new transactions. Then a more robust resale market would emerge, coupled with demand for new housing.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: Institutional investors represent a small share of the housing market, so banning them would do little to lower prices. They also supply rental housing for people who can’t or don’t want to buy. Proposals to restrict who can purchase property mirror the kinds of policies pushed in New York City by Mayor Mamdani. We need to reduce regulations, taxes, and fees that constrain supply. Limiting who can buy homes shrinks the market and discourages construction.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

Advertisement

YES: While institutional ownership currently only represents 4% of the market, funds with increasing algorithmic targeting, cash bids and conversion to rentals can drive prices and create negative externalities, especially impacting first-time buyers. First, run market-specific trials with short sunsets and analyze the impact on prices, supply and rental affordability before broader implementation or allow them to lapse.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

 



Source link

Advertisement

San Diego, CA

SD Unified moves forward with layoffs of classified employees

Published

on

SD Unified moves forward with layoffs of classified employees


SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Less than 3 weeks after the San Diego Unified School District finalized a new contract with teachers, the school board voted unanimously on Tuesday to move forward with layoff notices for other district employees.

The layoffs affect classified employees — workers who are employed by the district but are not teachers and are not certified. That includes bus drivers, custodians, special education and teacher aides, and cafeteria workers.

The district says it is eliminating 221 positions — 133 that are currently filled and 88 that are vacant — to save $19 million and help address a projected $47 million deficit for the next fiscal year.

Preliminary layoff notices will go out on March 15, with final notices by May 15.

Advertisement

The district estimates about 200 classified employees will receive preliminary notices, but of them, about 70 are expected to lose their jobs based on union-negotiated bumping rules.

Bumping allows employees with more seniority to move into another position in the same classification, thereby “bumping” a less senior employee out of that role.

Lupe Murray, an early childhood special education parafacilitator with the district, said the news came as a shock after the teacher strike was called off.

“When the strike was called off, I’m like, ‘Yes!’ So then when I got the email from the Superintendent, I’m like, ‘Wait, what?’ So, I think everyone was shocked,” Murray said.

The district says it sends out annual layoff notices, as all districts in the state do.

Advertisement

Before Tuesday’s board meeting, classified employees rallied outside, made up of CSEA (California School Employees Association) Chapters OTBS 788, Paraeducators 759, and OSS 724. They were joined by parents, students, and the San Diego & Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.

Miguel Arellano, a paraeducator independence facilitator with San Diego Unified and a representative of San Diego Paraeducators Cahpter 759.

“What do we want? No layoffs! When do we want it? Now!” the crowd chanted.

Arellano said he felt compelled to act when he learned about the potential layoffs.

“The first thing that went through my mind was that I need to speak up. I need to protect these people,” Arellano said.

Advertisement

Inside the meeting, the board heard emotional, at times tearful testimony from classified employees before voting unanimously to move forward with the layoff schedule.

Superintendent Fabi Bagula said the district has tried to protect classrooms from the cuts.

“We have tried our best to only, I mean, to not touch the school. Or the classroom. But now it’s at the point where it’s getting a little bit harder,” Bagula said. “What I’m still hoping, or what I’m still working toward, because we’re still in negotiations, is that we’re able to actually come to a win-win, where there’s positions and availability and maybe even promotions for folks that are impacted.”

Arellano warned the layoffs could have a direct impact on students.

“We are already spread thin, so, with more of a case load, it’s going to be impossible to be able to service all the students that we need to have,” Arellano said.

Advertisement

Follow ABC 10News Anchor Max Goldwasser on InstagramFacebook, and Twitter.

This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.





Source link

Continue Reading

San Diego, CA

Scripps Oceanography granted $15M for deep sea, glacier science

Published

on

Scripps Oceanography granted M for deep sea, glacier science


The Fund for Science and Technology, a new private foundation, granted Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego $15 million for ocean science Tuesday.

FFST, funded by the estate of the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, was started in 2025 with a commitment to invest at least $500 million over four years to “propel transformative science and technology for people and the planet.”

“Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego is pushing boundaries for exploration and discovery across the global ocean,” Chancellor Pradeep Khosla said. “This visionary support from the Fund for Science and Technology will enable Scripps researchers to advance our understanding of our planet, which has meaningful implications for communities around the world.”

The grant, the largest of its kind since Scripps joined UCSD in 1960, will go toward research in three areas: monitoring of environmental DNA and other biomolecules in marine ecosystems, adding to the Argo network of ocean observing robots, and enhancing the study of ocean conditions beneath Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier, often referred to as the “Doomsday Glacier.”

Advertisement

Scripps Institution of Oceanography has used Argo floats for more than two decades to track climate impacts in our oceans. NBC 7 meteorologist Greg Bledsoe reports.

“The Fund for Science and Technology was created to support transformational science in the search of answers to some of the planet’s most complex questions,” said Dr. Lynda Stuart, president and CEO at the fund. “Scripps has a long tradition of leadership at the frontiers of ocean and climate science, and this work builds on that legacy — strengthening the tools and insights needed to understand our environment at a truly global and unprecedented scale.”

Scripps Director Emeritus Margaret Leinen will use a portion of the grant in her analysis of eDNA — free-floating fragments of DNA shed by organisms into the environment — in understudied parts of the ocean to collect crucial baseline data on marine organisms, according to a statement from Scripps.

“In many regions, we know very little about the microbial communities that form the base of the ocean food web or that make deep sea ecosystems so unique,” Leinen said. “Without data, we can’t predict how these communities are going to respond to climate change or what the consequences might be. That’s a vulnerability — and this funding will help us begin to address it.”

Using autonomous samplers that can collect ocean water for eDNA analysis, as well as conventional sampling, scientists will use tools to “reveal the biology of the open ocean and polar regions.”

Advertisement

According to Scripps, the international Argo program has more than 4,000 floats that drift with currents and periodically dive to measure temperature, salinity and pressure. Standard floats can record data up to depths of 2,000 meters (6,560 feet), while newer Deep Argo floats can dive to 6,000 meters (19,685 feet).

The grant funding announced Tuesday will allow for Scripps to deploy around 50 Deep Argo floats along with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.

Sarah Purkey, physical oceanographer at Scripps and Argo lead, said this leap forward in deep ocean monitoring comes at a crucial time because the deep sea has warmed faster than expected over the last two decades.

Thwaites Glacier is Antarctica’s largest collapsing glacier and contains enough ice to raise global sea level by roughly two feet if it were to collapse entirely. According to Scripps, prior expeditions led by scientist Jamin Greenbaum discovered anomalously warm water beneath the glacier’s ice shelf — contributing to melting from below. Greenbaum now seeks to collect water samples and other measurements from beneath Thwaites’ ice tongue to disentangle the drivers of its rapid melting.

This season’s Antarctic fieldwork will “test hypotheses about the drivers of Thwaites’ rapid melt with implications for sea-level rise projections,” the statement from Scripps said.

Advertisement

“The ocean holds answers to some of the most pressing questions about our planet’s future, but only if we can observe it,” said Meenakshi Wadhwa, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and vice chancellor for marine sciences at UCSD. “This historic grant will help ocean scientists bring new tools and approaches to parts of the ocean we’ve barely begun to explore.”



Source link

Continue Reading

San Diego, CA

Southern California’s Jewish community reacts to war in the Middle East

Published

on

Southern California’s Jewish community reacts to war in the Middle East


The Jewish community in Southern California is sharing their fears and hopes following the weekend’s strikes on Iran and retaliatory attacks on Israel, U.S. military bases and other targets in the Middle East.

The exchange of missiles in the Middle East is having a devasting effect on Iran’s defense capability, but retaliatory strikes in the region are taking a toll. 

“Weapons of enormous capacity that are targeting civilian areas,” said Elan Carr, CEO of Los Angeles-based Israeli American Council.

Carr says toppling the Iranian regime, taking out its nuclear capabilities and freeing the Iranian people from this oppressive rule should have been done decades ago.

Advertisement

“This is about seeing the most evil regime, the world chief state sponsored terrorism to no longer have the ability to do what it’s been doing,” Carr said.

Sara Brown, regional director of the American Jewish Committee, said the U.S. and Israel are concentrating strikes on Iran’s missile sites and military industrial complex. Iran’s retaliatory strikes are focused on many civilian targets.

“We are hearing from our partners from around the region, who are terrified,” Brown said. “Across the Middle East right now, I think there is a tremendous amount of fear, but also hope and also resolve.”

AJC is the advocacy arm for Jewish people globally. Many members and partner groups are in harm’s way. Brown says the risk is great, but the potential reward is world changing.

“That Iranian people will get to choose leadership for themselves, that we will finally see a pathway forward for peace across the Middle East,” Brown said.

Advertisement

If wars of the past hadn’t produced lasting peace, then why now? Carr says Iran’s nuclear capabilities are destroyed and Iran’s military and proxies are weakened after Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas ambush.

“No more terrorist network throughout the Middle East. Think of what that could mean. Think of the normalization we could see,” Carr said.

President Donald Trump expects fighting to last several weeks. Some critics are concerned about a drawn-out conflict that could spread.

Carr is not convinced.

“Who is going to enter a war against the U.S. and Israel? Russia is plenty busy. China has no interest in jeopardizing itself this way,” Carr said.

Advertisement

Besides the six Americans killed as of Monday night, government officials say 11 people were killed in retaliatory strikes in Israel.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending