this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
168 points (82.8% liked)

Asklemmy

42495 readers
1369 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Does having an AirBNB setup make someone deserving of the guillotine or does that only apply to owners of multiple houses? What about apartments?

Please explain your reasoning as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Adalast 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You’ve never had government cheese I take it?

That is some of the best cheese I’ve ever had

I wish I could buy it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

I just had some a few months ago, it’s still fire.

Best grilled cheeses ever.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

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).

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.