The good news here is that a lot of people don’t even know they’re landlords or are from another country. It’s not the rinky dink landlords we have to worry about, it’s the corporation landlords that are ruining everything.
My slumlord individual landlord was much worse than the corporate landlord I have right now. Mileage varies significantly between corporations that run rental companies. I’ve also had rental agencies that were shit.
yeah I’ve had some pretty nightmare landlords that I knew personally or even lived with in some instances.
It’s not how they treat you but I’m glad you have a good one, it’s how they’re ruining the real estate market for people to purchase new homes. They buy all of the single family and rental properties for airBNBs or tear them down to build luxury only condos. Also, they’re not really luxury condos. Hopefully your city has anti slumlord laws as well.
That’s a good point. I could probably just buy a house if all the corporations weren’t buying up properties and inflating prices.
What’s ruining the real estate market is the fact it’s literally illegal to build enough housing on the vast majority of urban land (same situation in Canada, too). Add in insane parking minimum laws, setback requirements, lot size minimums, etc., and what you get is artificial government-mandated ultra low-density sprawl.
It’s the ultimate form of regulatory capture to protect the “investments” of speculators and homeowners. Typically under the guise of “protecting property values” or “protecting neighborhood character”. Just consider: who benefits most from artificially restricting new competition than the owners of existing housing? Restrict new supply so that you can see the value of what you already possess go to the moon… all at the expense of the rest of society, of course.
If you have 9 homes for every 10 households, price will go up until one of those households is priced out of the market. If we built more and made there be 10 homes for every 9 households, landlords – corporate or not – would be stripped of their market power to raise rent.
The evidence backs this up. Any new housing, even “luxury” or market-rate, improves affordability:
New buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6% relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later, and they increase in-migration from low-income areas. We show that new buildings absorb many high-income households and increase the local housing stock substantially.
And more flexible zoning helps contain rising rents:
But what happens to rents after new homes are built? Studies show that adding new housing supply slows rent growth—both nearby and regionally—by reducing competition among tenants for each available home and thereby lowering displacement pressures. This finding from the four jurisdictions examined supports the argument that updating zoning to allow more housing can improve affordability.
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.)
In addition, we can tax land:
Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as “the perfect tax” and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]
It’s a progressive, essentially impossible to evade tax that incentivizes densification and development while disincentivizing real estate speculation. Oh, and it can’t be passed on tenants, both in theory and in practice.
And even a milquetoast LVT – such as in the Australian Capital Territory – can have positive impacts:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
“Blah blah blah,” again? So you’re going to ignore that there is a shit ton of empty luxury homes and the price fixing? This isn’t my first rodeo, I’ve heard all of your arguments before and yes, they can be added into the mix but those aren’t the main focus.
- Make it so airbnb’s can only be operated by an owner that lives on site and one other location and for 2 units total for that owner.
- Corporations can only own a 20 unit (10-30, that number has to be researched) or more apartment building and then have to operate as a hotel if they’re running airbnbs. If condos or apartments, they have to provide all levels of income.
- Condo or rental high rises being built can’t buy their way out of providing all income units.
- No more price fixing or extreme legal consequences.
I have found that the people calling for just changing the zoning laws usually have a bulldozer right behind their shoulder waiting to be sent.
PS Trickle down housing doesn’t work. The end.
Yes, there is price fixing. You know how that works? By artificially restricting competition through regulatory capture, aka restrictive zoning.
All the evidence point to zoning reform and actually legally allowing things like missing middle housing to be effective ways to control rising rents. If you clicked on one of the above links, you’d see this table:
Also recall from the same report:
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
I have found that the people calling for just changing the zoning laws usually have a bulldozer right behind their shoulder waiting to be sent.
Well you didn’t even read the second half of my comment where I also called for taxing land.
PS Trickle down housing doesn’t work. The end.
Ah, yes, the old trick of calling everything you don’t like “trickle down”. Should the solution to the toilet paper shortages of 2020 have been to lock down new supply and wage a moral crusade against toilet paper scalpers? Or just actually get supply back to normal to avoid the whole situation in the first place?
the vast majority of new housing has been market rate
Hmmm, market rate is determined by price fixing so the people living there have to make more so they can live there and then the rent is price fixed up, and so on, and so on, and so on…
Raising taxes doesn’t help anyone in the short run since by the time it gets to being put towards something, it would probably be tax breaks for the tech companies. You’re right, I skimmed your comment because I knew what your goal was and you’d say anything to try and reach that goal; Build so there is money for investors, open the zoning laws all across the board so you can bulldoze and build more luxury apartments that families don’t want and the middle class and lower can’t afford. Trickle down housing takes 30 years to see results, all of your points are meaningless to me because you’re not operating in good faith.
Hmmm, market rate is determined by price fixing so the people living there have to make more so they can live there and then the rent is price fixed up, and so on, and so on, and so on…
Look at the chart I showed in my last comment again. Clearly landlords in Minneapolis aren’t raising rents in perpetuity. Gee, could that be because they abolished single-family zoning in 2018, and they’re already seeing a stabilized rental market despite being a large, desirable, high-QoL city? So much for your assertion that it “takes 30 years to see results”.
Raising taxes
My goal isn’t raising taxes. My goal is to replace bad taxes like sales, income, and property taxes with good taxes like land value taxes, carbon taxes (and other taxes on negative externalities), and severance taxes.
all of your points are meaningless to me because you’re not operating in good faith.
My guy, who do you think I am? Do you think all YIMBYs are actually just a secret cabal of developers rubbing our greedy little YIMBY hands together to demolish your historic gas stations and parking lots?
I’m a fresh-out-of-grad-school engineer who rents an apartment in a major city. I’ve seen the power of YIMBYism first hand, as I was able to negotiate down the landlord on rent before signing the lease, because there was a credible threat of me leaving and finding somewhere else cheaper. The reason why? My city, Montreal, is the most affordable major city in North America, with some of the lowest barriers to density, and extensive neighborhoods of “missing middle” housing (e.g., townhouses, plexes, low- and mid-rise apartments). All despite being a very desirable, very high-QoL city. Turns out having options gives you actual negotiating power against your landlord.
If you have all the fear of homelessness and your landlord has no fear of vacancy, then your landlord has all the power over you. If you have plenty of options, and your landlord has a credible fear of vacancy, you will have actual negotiating power. NIMBY policies only serve to empower landlords and weaken tenants.
Unlike you, I want to actually grant tenants (myself included) more negotiating power against their landlords by granting them more choices in housing.
Further, do you legitimately believe the current crony capitalist system has produced enough housing in America and Canada? Or is it possible vested interests have captured local governments to artificially limit supply and thus limit competition, and that NIMBYs like you are the pawns to protect their speculative investments?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/OUNXFHpUhu8?si=GmRtLvxOPxkpsf5N
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s also how they turn to technology to make it harder to really feel like you’re actually renting. Instead of keys, you have a door with a code, but you don’t control it, so if you’re even five minutes late with rent, they’ll change the code and lock you out. Just like with places like Google, it’s about removing humans and having a lot of this shit automated, despite how dehumanzing the automation is to the people who have to use such services. When you’re being fucked over and can’t even find a human to talk to, it’s dehumanizing.
so if you’re even five minutes late with rent, they’ll change the code and lock you out
If that happened in the US, it’s illegal. Call law enforcement (as much as people hate them, unfortunately you have to rely on them) and they’ll force the landlord to let you in. And you can also sue the landlord for it.
At least that’s how it is in blue states and cities.
At least that’s how it is in blue states and cities.
I see you have never lived in a blue area with a Sheriff that refused to enforce things they don’t like. I lived through a COVID denying Sheriff getting so many cops killed from COVID that they had to shut down the local jail because too many cops and inmates were dying because bad ventilation and general refusal of the cops to take any type of masking or social distancing seriously.
I mean, nationwide, COVID became the number one killer of cops during the pandemic.
I mean fuck, right now in most major cities in Washington (Seattle/Tacoma) you have had cops admitting that they were refusing to respond to calls as a political act. Literally trying to make people afraid by not showing up.
But sure, you can totally rely on the cops in these situations to show up and help. Especially in a reasonable amount of time. /s
I guess you could also break the lock yourself. Breaking into an residence you have legal rights to is not a crime.
I can see the landlord just pressing charges about property damage and claiming it wasn’t locked.
Here in Seattle, they were caught price fixing all of the rents as well. Basically, they all used one software that was supposed to tell you what others are charging so you could adjust your prices. Instead, they would all use it to raise the prices at the same time. It’s an evil industry.
It’s an evil industry.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. -Adam Smith
mine just jacked the rent again, more than doubled now in three years. it had gone up a grand total of one time over the previous 20 years (a whole $20) before he bought the building (pretty cheap, too).
i knew this shit was gonna happen, soon as i saw that notice of the building being sold three years ago to an llc with “investments” in the name. the previous owners were also tenants themselves.
That sucks, I’m sorry to hear that. Some people just have no concern for anything but money.
Why would you not raise the rent on your tenants? These people didn’t get into being landlords because they care about the field or the people. Those some people might as well be almost all those people.
Outlaw all landlords
Not everyone wants to buy a property.
would you like to get back all the money you spent on a rental property when you move out?
That doesn’t make any sense. Are you connecting mortgage payments to “getting money back” or something?
In a non private ownership situation the government “owns” the housing and citizens contribute via taxes. (Scaled to their ability/income) No argument on the validity of that approach, just saying someone still “owns” everything, and the money spent isn’t just sitting around, waiting to come back
who said non-private ownership? Landlords are not the only property owners, as much as they would like to be.
As in government owned
I said who said non-private ownership?
You proposed getting money back. I discussed options of who you might hope to be getting money from, because it wasn’t clear from your comment
I would like to sure, but I don’t think that’s reasonable. Why would I get my money back?
It’s how mortgages work. You make a monthly payment to live somewhere, same as renting. In the rental scenario, it all stays with the landlord. In the mortgage scenario, you have paid off some portion of the price of the house. When you move out, you sell the house, and use that money to pay the rest of what you owe, and the difference is yours. It’s like selling your car when buying a new one, except housing in the US tends to go up in price even when used.
You don’t need to explain it to me, I’m paying a mortgage and have rented before. But a rental isn’t a mortgage. You don’t get your money back when you return any rental item, why would a property be any different?
The landlord is offering a service: a property that you can move into almost right away, sometimes even furnished, with little risk and without having to manage the property. They’re the ones who have taken on the risk of taking on a mortgage or have spent a lot of money buying something outright.
I’m not defending all landlords here, but the concept. I think rentals are an important part of the market and for social mobility.
But a rental isn’t a mortgage. You don’t get your money back when you return any rental item, why would a property be any different?
right, thats why Im confused why anyone would rather rent.
also Im hearing an alien language. Im living in a rental property, I’ve never had one furnished, and I’ve been threatened with eviction for not managing the property myself. I aint seen my landlord in years.
Also, please dont buy into the propaganda that wealthy people are taking on risk. Its never about risk, its about having enough money to own the things that people need. They’re not gonna stop needing it.
right, thats why Im confused why anyone would rather rent
Maybe because you’re young and you don’t want to commit to buying a house yet? Or you’ve just got a new job in a distance place but need somewhere quickly? You can’t exactly tell your new employer you can’t start until 6 to 9 months while you look for a house and go through all the legal process to buy one. Also some people just don’t want to have to maintain it themselves. Boiler breaks? Landlords problem. Need a new roof? Landlord takes the hit.
Furnished rentals are definitely a thing here. Unfortunately shitty landlords exist everywhere.
If rent was just paying for the costs of utilities, insurance, taxes, general upkeep costs, and the mortgage for my unit I’d have no problem with it. When corporations start sucking up money to line the pockets of investors it becomes a problem.
do you not think a landlord is by default an investor?
Scalpers are investors of sorts, yes. Doesn’t make it a good thing that we should have in society
Im the guy saying get rid of all landlords. Being investors is what makes them bad.
I’m not playing word games today, sorry. In this context “investor” means someone who is investing in corporate ownership of housing.
Its no word game, this is layman’s terms, rental properties are bought by investors. I just dont get why unincorporated investors also sucking up money get a pass.
Because it’s greatly dependent on context. Someone with an ADU in their own back yard charging below market rent to a tenant (real life situation one of my friends is in, as the renter) is wildly different from Bill at the investor’s meeting demanding they raise rent again because he wants to buy a fourth mansion. Investing any real energy in decrying the former while the latter still exists just seems like a stupid waste of time to me.
ALAB.
What if someone wants to rent an apertment
With an absence of landlords, buying an apartment unit like a condo would be how that works.
But what if I don’t have money for an apartment or don’t want to commit myself to one?
Are you talking about the current situation or my hypothetical? Because money and commitment are a big part of renting an apartment.
I’m just talking about in general, how there’s reasons to rent
Because life is that simple. No subtlety at all.
Happy Fake Labor Day to the Americans, because their government wants to hide real labor day from their citizens so they don’t have to educate them about the Haymarket Affair.
Labor Day being in September is absolutely about erasing labor history. If more people knew labor history, more people would understand why All Cops Are Bastards.
May day! May day! We’ve got socialism over here!
May day!
I see what you did there.
You mean when some rioters tried to kill people with a bomb?
It was reasonable at the time to separate celebration of labor from Haymarket massacre, where an anarchist through a bomb into otherwise peaceful labor rally killing both the police and the civilian with many workers being injured and triggering the riot. The labor leaders in US then decided to make labor day to be not associated with these bloody events, which have little relationship with the labor movement itself. Not sure why you refer here to ACAB, the policemen were victims here.
At the McCormick reaper plant, a long-simmering strike erupted in violence on May 3, and police fired at strikers, killing at least two. Anarchists called a protest meeting at the West Randolph Street Haymarket, advertising it in inflammatory leaflets, one of which called for “Revenge!”
The crowd gathered on the evening of May 4 on Des Plaines Street, just north of Randolph, was peaceful, and Mayor Carter H. Harrison, who attended, instructed police not to disturb the meeting. But when one speaker urged the dwindling crowd to “throttle” the law, 176 officers under Inspector John Bonfield marched to the meeting and ordered it to disperse.
Then someone hurled a bomb at the police, killing one officer instantly. Police drew guns, firing wildly. Sixty officers were injured, and eight died; an undetermined number of the crowd were killed or wounded.
But sure, the cops who were told not to show up, and then showed up when they were angry that people were pissed that they murdered workers, they deservedly got a bomb in their faces.
Cops are always a bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit who can’t stand being criticized for being the violent fucking thugs they are.
Such blanket statements about all the cops is intellectual dishonesty at best. While there are shitty people working in all professions, and having some police officers shitty means very bad things can happen, the majority of the force is not that, as I am sure you aware. Yes, structural changes are needed, but this is not the same as calling all of them as bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit. There is crime in this country, and police does have its function and is needed by society.
ACAB
Look, I kind of agree with your sentiment, but the historical event in question did involve what the commenter you’re replying to insists happened. I that instance, all the cops involved were assholes. In that era, law enforcement was tied to power by necessity, since only the powerful (read: rich) could start townships and such and afford to pay for law enforcers.
But now? Things are a little complex. This is on purpose, as the powerful class has continually meddled in police affairs through lobbying and unions (ironically the police union is hilariously well funded due to rich interests wanting am army to keep the poors in line), and we’re (in the US) trending back towards police basically being an official branch of Pinkertons.
Still, I’ve met good cops. Genuinely good people. Last year, I had a flat (entirely my fault. In CA) tire and a passing motorcycle cop stopped to help. He not only helped me replace it with a spare, he offered to call and pay for a tow truck for me. Truly a kind man, and believed in his social position perhaps more than the average.
But yeah, that’s not how it is in most places. Even in CA you have sheriff gangs, prison guard gangs, corruption, you name it. Like I said, the US as a whole is generally trending backwards as of late.
Anyways we need nuance. But we’re increasingly approaching a world where nuance is shunned or laughed at as missing the point, or being needlessly picky. Not only that, people seem even more desperate to feed into tribal groupings. Even on lemmy, you’re either pro US or pro China/Russia. It’s like people think they need to pick a side.
Sorry, just needed to rant I guess. I just hope we manage to keep the planet alive while we figure our bullshit out.
You’re a good human. I don’t get to say this enough, please never change.
Cheers mate, thanks for the nuanced take.
I don’t think most folks like me reject the idea that good cops could exist, it’s more that we’re so aware of how many bad cops exist (at least in the US), it’s one of those situations where good cops are run off the force (or worse, targeted and murdered before they can testify) or put up with so much bad behavior themselves that over time, they’ve become a bad cop, because they’re not stopping other bad cops. Even if they’re nice to citizens, if they’re covering for crimes of their fellow cops, they’re a bad cop. The fact that more cops aren’t standing up against things like qualified immunity when it’s painfully being abused or civil forfeiture when it’s abused shows exactly how little they care for the public and how much they care for their right to abuse the public without recourse.
Unfortunately, that leaves most cops in the USA falling under the umbrella of ACAB.
Oh, and the whole 40% of cops self-reported as beating their spouses. On top of the whole “Killology” mess that trains them to be an occupying force in their own cities. It’s really hard to make excuses for them at this point.
Just admit you were wrong. Just say “Actually, you’re right, the cops were committing violence against striking workers first.” It’s not that hard.
No need to split hairs or change the subject.
Not on May 4. And I did not change the subject - you did with the ACAB statement.
To the topic: The bomber was anarchist. Labor was not behind this attack and wanted to distant itself from it. Thus they selected the September.
You’re really dedicated here to handwaving away the violence committed by the police before the bombing and also handwaving away that the cops were asked by the Mayor to not interfere. Maybe, just maybe, if the pigs hadn’t fucking showed up, it would have never happened.
It’s also handwaving away that only 2 of the 8 men put to death for the bombing were actually at the Haymarket event, and it was never conclusively proven that any of them built the bomb. They also never proved conclusively who threw it, but they put 8 men to death over it.
Also, it’s handwaving away the brutal crackdown on union organizers afterwards. Maybe, just maybe, the reason the labor organizations acquiesced and distanced themselves is because all the businesses, property owners, newspapers, and government were busy vilifying them. How much choice did the labor movement actually have in the date?
There was disagreement among labor unions at this time about when a holiday celebrating workers should be, with some advocating for continued emphasis of the September march-and-picnic date while others sought the designation of the more politically charged date of May 1. Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe. In 1887, he publicly supported the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative, formally adopting the date as a United States federal holiday through a law that he signed in 1894.
So the labor movement is Grover Cleveland? And so it’s pretty clear it was because they wanted to prevent socialists from strengthening their numbers. Give me a break. Stop trying to rewrite history and get that boot out of your slobbery mouth.
Also, finally, stop repeating “anarchist” like it’s supposed to be an insult. “Not on May 4th” is the definition of splitting hairs, chucklefuck.
You are correct, the American website Wikipedia definitely does not have an article on Haymarket
be me american sees OP comment googles haymarket affair first result is Wikipedia article for haymarket affair 😐
The average American has a seventh grade reading level (with 54% of the population with less than a sixth grade reading level), and you expect them to be educated enough to 1. know what it is and 2. look for a Wikipedia article on it?
Jesus, half this fucking country doesn’t even live in reality anymore. Somehow, they’re supposed to just know that it’s on Wikipedia.
So you want like some mandatory Ludovico Technique for this piece of information, or what? There’s literally a library of Congress article. It has been part of AP US history for as long as I can remember. I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make. That there are tons of wilfully ignorant people in the US (true)? Or that this piece of history has been censored (objectively false)?
More that the US has successfully managed to censor entire swaths of history by limiting education (especially in red states) and ensuring that critical thought is not taught or enforced in any meaningful capacity. This is all totally intentional and verifiable. The information is there, but people are literally not ever taught (in academia) to think critically and seek answers to things they are unsure of. It’s mostly just memorization until you get the churned to the next year of memorization and if you do dare question any of it you get shit on by peers and teachers alike for being a know it all. It’s rare that you find people willing to foster curiosity in children which ultimately blooms into people eating up whatever they’re told as truth.
Erasure is different than censorship, and I think you’re intelligent enough to know that. I took that AP history class, and it was super biased against the workers, so that’s kind of a joke to reference.
Also, if we’re talking about a country with a seventh grade average reading level, we’re mostly talking about people who have never taken an AP fucking US history class.
Choosing the September date is part and parcel to why more people don’t know about it, because it’s not generally part of the public consciousness or conversation. That’s called erasure, not censorship.
If it was an AP class, that shits not getting to the ears of who really needs it most.
I would argue that it’s completely erased in most States
I mean we’re talking about a country that is literally in the process of redefining the history of slavery and running with “but the slaves learned valuable skills!” Yeah, I’m trying to meet these people at their level, but it’s clear that in huge swaths of the country, it isn’t talked about, period.
deleted by creator
I had a great public education and this one of the very few things that wasn’t mentioned.
I just did some reading on it and found this article. I wasn’t even really aware of the event until recently.
https://socialistworker.org/2011/01/28/the-legacy-of-haymarket
According to others in the thread, you should have known your whole life about the Wikipedia article on it! Duh! /s
Interesting stuff
I sort of knew about this but not the details. Reading that article shows just how far America has failed to come in 50 years.
Mentioning America on a post that has nothing to do with America specifically? Yeah, this type of thing is ripped straight off of Reddit.
Is this a double negative?
Don’t light no grill?
Yea, getting Destiny’s Child vibes
Pretty sure it was TLC that didn’t want no Scrubs. I thought it was a pretty fun show too 🤷
I think it’s southern slang
Ahh, that makes sense, when i say it out loud it makes more sense, i just don’t read slang very much.
You people are so naive its cringe.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear your pleas from my speedboat. Oh, you were busy working because I set your schedule to work on Labor day? Obviously we’re of two different classes of people. /s
I am my hamsters land lord. Ask me anything
my cat and I started as roommates but now I’m pretty sure he’s my boyfriend.
Yeah, first my dog and I just kinda coexisted, but then we were forced to talk to each other because turns out that he’s my coworker.
What’s their rent?
What’s their rent?
5k on the hamster wheel every day
And a few hundred brown pellets
Do you have any rooms open right now?
How does it feel being a monster
No Landlords on Lemmy I imagine
Edit: *greedy. No greedy landlords on Lemmy
I have a few rentals. Only one of them was purchased as a straight up investment. The others were just the places where I used to live. I also have a job. Theaye posts are honestly pretty childish. I rent my places out more or less at cost, and often take applicants who are seen as too risky by most landlords (I basically guarantee my own rentals, because I don’t really need the cash flow). I see it more as community service than a revenue stream.
That’s why I just think this shit is childish. Almost everyone I rent to is in no position to buy. I guess they’d just be homeless without landlords. I’ve had people who have literally been turned down 50 times, who were living in their car, and broke down crying when I told them I’d rent to them without a co-signer.
It’s super fucked up how people basically are constantly essentially getting taxed more and more for the right to survive. No one should be profiting off basic needs
That being said, the system is fucked up, and if you’re mainly using their rents to pay for equity, you’re playing by the rules while doing more good than harm. It can still be a win-win, and I think it’s ok to feel good about that
Homes shouldn’t be an investment vehicle, but they are - you should seek to help fix the broken rules, but it’s foolish to just ignore them. Most investments have a similar effect somewhere down the line anyways
But the real question is - are you actually a landlord? Technically yes, but in spirit? If you’re not making much of a profit from rent, you’re not what people mean when they say landlord. The upper middle class has been dabbling in rental properties for a while, but that’s not who the term refers to - it’s people who own enough that the rental income is the line item they’re keeping track of.
The starting line is like 20-30 units, and it’s mostly held by investment groups or families that inherited a town… They’re who own most rental properties out there
If you rent out a few places and don’t put much thought into adjusting the rent, you’re not the problem here. You’re not the one we’re talking about when we talk about landlords
Shame they’re in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren’t allowed to own a “few” rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a “few” rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.
There would just be less housing. Construction workers are workers too, and as much as it sucks, they aren’t going to put $50k of their own labor and materials at risk so that a person living paycheck to paycheck can own a home, regardless of how noble that pursuit might be.
I also support radical action to end housing shortages and homelessness, and believe secure housing is a fundamental human right. If the government wanted to buy my properties at cost, using my own tax dollars, and gift them to those in need, I would support that. If they wanted to turn my current home into high density housing, I would support that. I am doing many things on my own, both through advocacy and direct action to address the real moral problem of housing. Unfortunately, I have no interest in being a smug slacktivist, so it often seems like lemmy doesn’t have any interest in my ideas.
Not everyone wants to own and it can even be profitable not to… It’s like if the anti landlord movement wants to force ownership on everyone…
Obviously not. The “movement” wants to remove profit intensives from the whole process
So landlords should rent for the price of their mortgage only? What about when they’re done paying their mortgage, they should rent for free and take a risk that the person “renting” the place will damage it and the landlord then has to pay for the damage? What’s the incentive to rent then? Wouldn’t that create more scarcity? What about if they’re on a mortgage with variable rate, should the rent price vary every few months?
By “at cost” do you mean they’re paying your mortgages and property taxes for you? If so, they could afford to buy if they had a down-payment. They probably don’t have a down-payment because all their money goes to rent :)
I don’t blame people for being capitalist when living in a capitalist system, but it still sucks. You could try something like a non-predatory form of rent-to-own where they gain equity over time (though these arrangements are usually predatory).
Oh, that is very generous of you! I’ve edited my comment
I guess they’d just be homeless without landlords
See. This is why I don’t like landlords.
It’s either I’m stuck with some transactional fake as fuck relationship or I’m homeless.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Very thoughtful and agreeable comment. Fuck any greedy landlords and corps for buying up properties and driving up housing costs, but landlords and rentals do need to exist for people who need temporary housing or aren’t in the position to buy.
In a capitalist society, sure.
Thank you for your service.
It’s easy to demonize and dunk on people for being greedy and just removing houses from the market, but as you well have stated, some people are not in a position to buy. So rent becomes the only true and logical solution.
Sure, they could well be down on their luck. But I would also present the case of the immigrant, new to a country (and having moved with a job offer), having no opportunity to sign for a mortgage (no credit history, didn’t gather enough work time in the country to provide payslips). And even if they had a suitcase of money just lying around, it takes a bit of time to decide if you want to settle. The best one can hope for is finding a landlord who’s not an asshat.
And no, other solutions proposed in the comments probably would not help, since, for instance, communal rentals tend to have long waiting lists or require some sort of reputation (like knowing some of the community) before allowing you to move in.
I wonder why people are in no position to buy, when homes are treated as a source of revenue for corporations and some people. I wonder why people have to jump through hoops to be able to have a roof, if the property are bought as an investment.
Yeah, maybe you aren’t lying and not making a profit out people’s suffering, but even you should see that it’s not the norm, otherwise your benevolence wouldn’t be needed at all. The whole system is cruel, and everyone who participates contributes to it, some more than others.
Usually not, I try not to mingle with the…riff raff…who we allow to occupy our homes. And when they forget the manditory tip, whelp out to the streets with you since you can’t manage your finances.
Since you can’t manage our finances*
It’s not Labour Day, you moron. We already had that earlier in the year.
deleted by creator
Be thankful on this great socialist American holiday for the people.
deleted by creator
The message of an idiot, phrased like an idiot.
This is so true. And of course it gets upvoted because of the hive mind on Lemmy that thinks anyone who owns a small business is somehow bad.
Strawman, definist, equivocation, and appeal to the minority, that was almost impressive.
No, not a small business. Do not try to twist that we are talking about landlords here not small businesses. There is a difference
Being a landlord = running a business. Being a small landlord= running a small business.
Yes this is exactly what’s being discussed.
As a landlord I provide homes to people who need them, and in exchange I don’t have to toil away at a job. It’s a fair trade
This isn’t about own vs rent, it’s about house vs apartment.
Open flames are dangerous and smoke is annoying to neighbors. Condos and coops typically won’t let you grill. Some of them have designated grilling areas and those often have restrictions on how you can use them. Even many apartments with fireproof balconies won’t allow them because not all the neighbors want a balcony full of smoke.
Every house I’ve ever rented, allowed grilling. Even the cheapest one, a row-house in Baltimore, let you grill in the back “yard”.
