Pretty sad to see this kind of attitude. The problem IMO is buying with the intent to rent, and companies owning too much property. I rent, but I don't think that if you inherit something you're immediately a bad person until you sell it. Or if you bought something while single, once you move in with a significant other you're a bad person. I wouldn't have a problem renting from people like this either. There needs to be % cap on company rentals, and there needs to be a cap on private properties owned, but I don't personally think the number has to be 1.

Owning more property and being richer than me doesn't make someone automatically a bad person. People nowadays can only see black and white. We're so frustrated and tired of dealing with shit that we can't empathize with fellow human beings. Not everyone is a "real estate investment firm".

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. That kind of comment serves to divide and distract us and while we are busy fighting over these relatively tiny sums, the ultra rich are getting richer.

The solutions you propose make way more sense.

[–] Moghul 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm sure there are major issues with that idea as well, such as creating a rigid structure of sale and rental.

For example here, politicians made it very difficult to get kicked out if you rent a place for more than 2 years. You basically have to agree to move out. All that did is make virtually all landlords only lease for 2 years because it's hard to get rid of a bad tenant after that. It's a great thing if you can get it, but it sucks to have to move that often.

If you limit the % property for rent in a city, maybe companies will build turbo shit apartments (or extremely expensive apartments) for sale, and decent apartments for rent. The monkey paw is strong.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (28 replies)