this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
168 points (82.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43472 readers
1769 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a really easy definition for me. Do you acquire recurring income from a residential location that you don't personally live at? You get the French haircut.
Owning a home and having roommates that share the mortgage is fine. Putting your guest bedroom on Airbnb is fine. Owning an apartment building and living in one of the units and actually providing labor to contribute to the running of the apartment building (whether through maintenance or office work), perfectly ok.
With that being said, when it comes time for the guillotine, we'll start with the corporate landlords to give the "mom and pop" landlords time to come to their senses.
Edit: explaining my reasoning: Passive income is theft. Owning things is not a job. Humans have a right to live by nature of being alive, profiting off of a human right is evil.
I agree with your points but I'm curious what your solution is to single family homes that are being rented out? The obvious one is everyone who wants to buy a place is able to, but not everyone wants to buy yet (younger people, people who want flexibility, people who know they are moving [only in that city for school], etc). Having some corporation own everything is also obviously the worst option, but that only really leaves the government and the mom and pop operations (that is people who own 1 place and buy another to rent it out). Should all single family homes be run as co-ops? Torn down and rental apartments built instead?
Again, I agree that single entities owning multiple rental places is a bad thing, but there doesn't seem an obvious replacement. So I am genuinely curious as what can be done?
Don't listen to anyone else mentions "guillotines". It didn't even work for the people of Paris, who eventually burned it.
The fundamental problem is, people want to live in certain locations and in modern homes. There's plenty of cheap land in the middle of nowhere but no modern comforts. And modern homes are much harder to build than older ones were. This reduces the supply of new homes and increases the value of existing housing.
One potential solution is taxing rental income and supporting first time homebuyers more. Or maybe increasing regulations and inspections of rental properties. This would remove the worst landlords and lower the cost of buying a house. Literally tax rentals and send the money to first time homebuyers.
Landlord are fine, just like private farming is fine. Food is necessary to live too, but few people are clamoring for "government cheese". The problem is the housing market is full of unregulated rentals where the only qualification to rent something is having the key. Make landlords jump through some hoops and the worst ones will sell to first time homebuyers.
Yeah, owning a home is an expensive pain in the ass. I'm always spending either time or money doing some sort of work on it.
I definitely get not wanting the responsibility of all of the bullshit that comes with home ownership, and actually know a few people who sold their house and went back to renting because of it.
Landlords absolutely have their place, but corporations have no business being involved.
The presumption of this is that A. You spend as much if not more than rent on mortgage+maintenance and B. Landleeches actually maintain the properties they rent.
Mine is refusing to do basic repair on water damage to a plaster ceiling that is outgassing VoCs into my baby's nursery. If we actually put him in the room he would be subject to a lifetime of respiratory issues. They are only doing work on the outside of the house which I have been requesting for over a year because the city is passing an ordinance that would result in them getting fined hard for the condition of the house.
Youβve never had government cheese I take it?
That is some of the best cheese Iβve ever had
I wish I could buy it
It's just American cheese. If that's the best you've ever had, you're remembering incorrectly. Maybe it was the best thing you had at the time. It's definitely not good cheese.
I just had some a few months ago, itβs still fire.
Best grilled cheeses ever.
Co-op housing are not all rental apartments. They come as single family dwellings, town houses, apartments, everything in between. It's about how they're used and regulated for the communities and individuals sake instead of an investor. You could find an appropriate housing style for all walks of life within co-ops, even those more private and secluded types.
The type of building is irrelavant to the problem. Anything that works for apartment complexes works just as well for a single family house. It's always the land underneath that's the issue.
And at the ond of the day any solution that include getting rid of landlords comes down to the government seizing "unused" or "inappropriately used" land more aggresively. Something that just doesn't sit right with most people.
People don't want to buy a house because it's either unaffordable, unavailable or the process takes too long. If you eliminate those aspects of home ownership, people wouldn't mind and maybe even prefer owning a home for short periods of time.
So curious here:
When I moved to the city I'm in now, I rented an apartment until I could figure out the best neighborhood in which to buy and to find the right house for me.
So it's ok for me to buy a house and live in it, but it's NOT ok to rent the apartment. It should have been provided to me, I guess. Is that right?
You didn't read carefully enough.
So I have to find a place to rent that has an owner/operator? And hope it's in a safe location? And hope there's availability? And that I can afford it? And that it's close enough to work? And that they offer month-to-month so I can leave when I find the right place?
Seems simple enough.
does make you a landlord by definition
Ok, I'll kick the roomate out into the cold, I could use the room for a shop/office anyway I was just helping out a friend, but if I have to choose between him being homeless and me being headless, "sorry homie it's an easy choice." He'll understand.
Saved. Conservatives are often described as βcalling for bloodβ, so Iβm saving a collection of calls for blood from the left, for when people forget about how casually you all threaten murder.
Thanks for adding to my collections.
Oooh damn you got them
Not trying to get them. Just making a little collection.