Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jdbfiv2 wrote

Reply to comment by CustosEcheveria in Hundreds Evicted in Isla Vista by New Landlord - The Santa Barbara Independent by Croughman

[removed]

−81

CustosEcheveria t1_jdbg85j wrote

Getting harder for people to do that when corporations are buying 90% of the single family homes every year

67

ultima-ratio-populi t1_jdbrv00 wrote

If people were free they wouldn't pay rent. Not every country is afflicted with rampant landlordism. Countries with high home ownership have negligible levels of homelessness. Hoarding the housing supply is not ethical. If you take something everybody needs and put it on the market, the price will necessarily go too high for some people to afford it. Something everybody needs, you're advocating for denying that for the sake of preservation of the livelihood of worthless parasites. The threat of homelessness to preserve profiteering, that's your idea of freedom.

27

RGB755 t1_jdbxpqi wrote

You don’t need crazy high home ownership rates to get the situation under control though. In Germany they’re working on a temporary rent cap to go on top of existing market regulations.

In France they’ve passed laws to tie rent increases to energy efficiency investments.

Plenty of sensible approaches exist to regulate the rental market, some countries just don’t have the political will to use them.

15

Ban-Circumcision-Now t1_jdnxsi5 wrote

The problem in The U.S. is that we severely restrict high density housing that would makes houses/rentals more affordable

Rent control would only further reduce new apartment/ housing construction, who is going to take the huge expenses and risk to build new housing when they can’t make any money from it

1

[deleted] t1_jdckkst wrote

[removed]

−21

ishitfrommymouth t1_jdctt0n wrote

Are you familiar with supply and demand? Without landlords buying up shit tons of properties the supply vastly increases and the demand drops at the same time. Making the homes much more reasonably priced.

8

Ban-Circumcision-Now t1_jdny3l1 wrote

Supply and demand still applies and now you’ve created a situation where people can’t rent if they want to, so now you are locking people into an area/home

Realtors would love your idea but wow that’s a huge expense you’ve added to people that move around a lot

1

kathodus t1_jdbjl3g wrote

That's not how parasites work.

18

[deleted] t1_jdcl2zl wrote

[removed]

−17

17times2 t1_jdd0hfc wrote

Landlording wouldn't be as bad if you couldn't hoard properties, if fixes and repairs were quick and consistent, and rent wasn't 200% of what a mortgage is.

9

[deleted] t1_jdddxab wrote

[removed]

−7

17times2 t1_jddgavf wrote

> No idea why you think someone in real estate is "hoarding" properties if they own more than (some number) of properties.

Because that's the definition of hoarding.

> Go build as many properties as you want, it is a free country.

Properties are land, not houses. And the only people building on multiple properties are the wealthy. I don't know what kind of argument you think you're making, but "let people with money do anything they want with it with no limits" is about as piss-poor a decision you could possibly make in a capitalism-based nation.

> What someone's mortgage payment is is utterly irrelevant to what they should charge for rent.

It's partially relevant as it tends to sway rent and mortgage prices in the area.

> Some landlords own their property free and clear, does that mean they should charge less than someone who has a big mortgage on a similar property?

They're all going to float to a similar price for equivalent homes based on the area price so this isn't even a valid question. They could absolutely afford to, but they're not going to. You're asking if just because it's more moral, that they should be compelled?

7

[deleted] t1_jddycom wrote

[removed]

−1

17times2 t1_jde2kry wrote

> You bring stuff up like saying rent 200% of mortgage and then admit the mortgage amount is irrelevant

I just brought up the exceedingly high cost of rent from the renter's side. You decided to make it about the landlord being coerced to rent for lower based on their situation. They don't have anything to do with each other even though you keep attempting to conflate them.

> Then you make up a definition of hoarding that is also silly,

Sigh. Maybe this is cute for you, but it's just sad for me to have to interact with.

> having 10 $1 bills is not hoarding and neither is owning 10 rental properties

I can tell you must be a landlord, because no ordinary person would make such an asinine comparison of $10 to 10 rental properties. $10 isn't enough for a combo meal at McDonalds. 10 rental properties requires a literal management group. If you have so many rentals they have to be organized, you have too many.

> Hertz isn’t hoarding cars by having a rental fleet, Marriot isnt hoarding hotel rooms by owning Thousands of hotel rooms

These aren't properties, these are assets. Try and keep your comparisons in the same ballpark.

> landlord isn’t hoarding because they rent out more than 0 rental properties

> You want to control people with what they buy, I don’t. You give no rational explanations just the usual mistaken belief that somehow you are entitled to something just because.

> You utterly ignore reality, wanting there to be no landlords

Are you even responding to my posts anymore, or just arguing with the increasingly agitated voice in your head? I brought up "no hoarding" and what you instead decided to read was "NO LANDLORDS. NO RENTALS FOR ANYONE."

You understand what "too much" means, right? You know what "greedy" means, right? It means you are taking more than your share. It's the core of the whole "1%" movement. I'm curious if you have a reason that you want to encourage that the richest people in this country get richer off the most finite resource we have (land) while everything gets smaller and more expensive for everyone else. Are you just ignorant to how capitalism works, or do you genuinely just enjoy people having less money and less property?

What it seems to come down to is: I believe that landlords are probably fine when they don't control excessive amounts of land. You believe landlords are fine and that they SHOULD control excessive amounts of land.

4