Submitted by blondiebell t3_10l2ka1 in pittsburgh
blondiebell OP t1_j5ufxk7 wrote
Reply to comment by Jumpy-Natural4868 in New tenants are getting screwed by blondiebell
I dont misunderstand business, but its awful to me that housing is being run as a business in the first place and that it's been left unchecked for so long. It's fine to make a profit on an asset, but this assest is someones home and should come with different rules that protect the tenant. Why is this situation okay, just because its "business as usual"?
pghhotfire t1_j5uhjdq wrote
It’s not immoral. If you own a home, for instance, and go to sell it, wouldn’t you try to sell it for as much as you can? What about the landlord/property owner who has an obligation to their family to provide for them to the best they can.
pierogie_65 t1_j5ukdm3 wrote
you’re right, it’s a generational issue.
blondiebell OP t1_j5uqyhw wrote
But that's the thing, why was it ever allowed for your sole income to be someone else's home?? Investments come with risk and your only investment should never be something that can fail so easily and devastate you financially if it does. That's investing 101, diversify.
If I am selling a home I presumably used it for long enough that the land it's on increased in value and I could make a profit from its sale, but that profit will likely go into the cost of a new home (that's also increased in value) or retirement if I am downsizing and on a fixed income. The sale of a house isnt meant to be just for profit and it why many people, myself included have a problem with flippers.
Landlords are allowed to exist, people will always have a need for rentals, but no landlord should be allowed to gouge their renters for their own profits because someones home isnt like any other investments. Investing in rentals should come with very strict rules that protect the renter.
pghhotfire t1_j5uryb4 wrote
It seems to be a philosophical difference and I respect your position. I disagree, but I respect it.
blondiebell OP t1_j5usmt5 wrote
If you're willing to dive further, I'm curious what your personal justifications are for your position. What has brought you to your current opinions on the matter of for profit housing?
pghhotfire t1_j5uvyo4 wrote
Two things can be right. I don’t know how affordable/subsidized housing works. And the gentrification of neighborhoods often has me wondering, literally, what happened to all those people. And I believe there should be infrastructure in place for access to housing. With that out of the way, real estate is an investment (as well as a place to live if your investment is your house.) and any investment has risks and rewards. I plan on selling my house in a few years. So between now and then I have list of upgrades and improvements I want to make to maximize my return on that investment. Which is moral. And responsible for my family. In the case of your landlord, maybe they are in the same position. They took a substantial risk in investing in that property and now or trying to maximize that return…also moral; also responsible.
blondiebell OP t1_j5v1ca8 wrote
To an extent I can see how you came to your conclusions. My question would then be how do you feel about this happening in other industries?
We're seeing this all around right now, but let's use the example of electric/power. You have to have it in your home and for most places there is only one option for provider DLC. If you found out your electric bill went up $200 because the power company in Cleveland started charging more to their customers would you be upset?
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5uyjsz wrote
Here is some reading
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/trump-budget-unhealthy-housing
blondiebell OP t1_j5v9rri wrote
Glad to see that spending is up for HUD and many of their programs. Unfortunately I worry that a lot will go towards mitigating the severe situation left by COVID and not the issues that existed beforehand. A big one is that while they are increasing the value and number of vouchers available to those that qualify, they are not putting enough into regulating the quality and safety of the properties themselves that take vouchers or the number of properties that do.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5vdkb4 wrote
I like to point out to people that private for profit companies are just as wasteful and awful as government housing projects and they build really low quality apartments and houses. I also like to point out democrats raise taxes on the richest people to pay for welfare while republicans will never do that. Republicans are more likely to keep rich peoples taxes lower by not only underfunding welfare but also keeping middle class taxes higher
blondiebell OP t1_j5vfzru wrote
Hahaha you actually made me laugh out loud with your first line 😂😂
You are absolutely off base if you consider for profit housing failures comparable to HUD failures. Your own links point to the exact fact that HUD programs and properties fail by design because the Republicans in power let them. It is a never ending cycle of wanting to profit so they make affordable housing inaccessible, withholding funding for government housing up keep, letting that gov housing fail, and then pointing to its failing as a reason to keep for profit housing.
The certainly both have issues, but they are wildly different and can not and should not be compared by the same measures.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5vhuey wrote
They “luxury” buildings sprouting up around the city are butt ugly and paper thin. Ryan houses are quite bad also. The terraces in the hill and the new housing in Larimar looks decent. Some of the rehab work by Trex is really good.
blondiebell OP t1_j5vk9en wrote
We agree there. They are shitty for the same reason every nee thing is shitry quality, greed. Lower build cost means more profit when they charge their obscene "luxury" prices.
[deleted] t1_j5wjfar wrote
[deleted]
blondiebell OP t1_j5wlclx wrote
Actually they exist because they are supposed to be temporary, whether it's to give the renter the ability to save for a home or if they were only planning to stay in the area a short time like a work contract or school. Housing was never meant to for profit.
[deleted] t1_j5wmjrb wrote
[deleted]
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5uxvis wrote
It’s been debated in this country since the Great Depression and the pendulum swings back and forth over the years for how much people want the government to get involved in the housing market. When blacks were not allowed in public housing, most of the country supported public housing. Once desegregation happened in the 60s many white people switched to supporting Republicans which are heavily on the side of no public housing or rent controls and they seem to keep getting elected so I don’t know what else to do besides vote for a democrat that might try to fix the issue.
blondiebell OP t1_j5v80hm wrote
What even is your point, if you have one? Racism killed support public housing so we should just accept that the racist side has a point for why we shouldn't have it..
The only arguments I've seen for weakening public housing is because for profit landlords would lose profits.
Unfortunately, we agree that individuals cant do much but vote for the people we best believe will fight for those changes.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5vaecv wrote
My main point is vote against the racists but I’m mostly just rambling. Libertarians say government is inherently corrupt and private sector will solve the problem more efficiently. Some middle class working families think democrats will tax them to pay for housing for lazy people. These aren’t my views but I’m just pointing out the arguments you might hear from some people so you can prepare yourself accordingly to think of ideas that will win over more support for what you want to see happen
blondiebell OP t1_j5vcl5b wrote
I appreciate the concern, it is important to prepare for the arguments you can forsee when this topic comes up. Forever and always, voting against racists is the right thing to do.
Jumpy-Natural4868 t1_j5uhg6c wrote
If there was no profit motive, there would be no landlords and no housing to rent.
I'm not an unfettered capitalist myself, but it was quite nice for the landlord to limit rent increases for you during your time there, because it seems that the market was sending signals that the landlord could have raised the rent much more (and added fees) for the times you were there and renewed.
pierogie_65 t1_j5uk126 wrote
you’re still thinking within the current system. capitalism demands that there be a ‘profit motive’ for every facet of our society. every sector, education, medical, housing… all profit oriented and are all degrading systems in the US. housing has become a get rich quick scheme and has driven more folks into houslessness, increased 3.1% since 2020. a lot of these folks are disabled and have income caps that will kick them off disability if they make over a certain amount, rendering them ineligible for a lot of housing opportunities. our current system will always place profit above people, and the result is every day folks like you normalizing and perpetuating that narrative.
blondiebell OP t1_j5ujexs wrote
Profit itself isn't a problem, it's the degree that landlords are able to make profit at the expense of their tenants and society as a whole.
It's happening everywhere, price gouging is seemingly the norm right now because there are little to no checks in place to stop a business from charging what every they want. With something as important as housing it is leaving people desperate and sometimes even homeless.
I'm not ungrateful to feel I got a good deal, it's just important to me that more people see the reality of prices increasing this dramatically for renters. I can afford a house only because I got lucky on rent and could save, that feels like it will be near impossible for the very next person who lives there after me, it sucks.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments