• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    792 years ago

    Probably a controversial opinion but companies should not be able to own residential real estate at all, the reason most people cant get a house is because big companies are buying them up with limitless sums of money so they can rent them out infinitely, its not a free market when the big company will pay 20% over your entire life savings just to make sure you don’t own anything.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      Absolutely nothing controversial about the truth. In fact, I’d say it’s the exact opposite of controversial, at least in this case.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Yeah no this isn’t controversial. Private landlords serve no purpose in society. You just pay them their mortgage for the privilege of living in their house. It’s ridiculous.

    • tmyakal
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      I agree in the case of single-family homes. Even in cases of 3 or 4 unit buildings. But how do you propose full-on complexes get run if not by a company? Very few individuals have the capital to buy a 50-unit building, and honestly, the US needs more dense urban housing to help reduce our impact on climate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        112 years ago

        Easy. Non-profit co-ops, ideally as part of land trusts. They keep prices reasonable, give all community members a say, and the people who are lucky enough to live in them love them.

      • Noxy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Condos. (for non-Americans, this means “apartments except owner-occupied, or at least individually owned and then rented out”

        I lived in a 200+ unit condo building. Owned my unit and some proportion of the common stuff and had voting rights and such in the HOA.