You're viewing a single thread.
Or just ban Landlording of housing and problem solved. The homelessness crisis immediately ends and houses become so cheap that everyone can afford them.
There is a need for renting, so there has to be some balance to avoid all that capital being driven toward forcing renting to be the only option while still allowing some housing stock be available for renting (eg people who know they won't be there more than two years)
That's what apartments are there for
Who would get to own those?
The government.apartments are the perfect solution for people who want to rent short-term, houses are not.
The government used to build apartments until Bill Clinton made it against the law for states to build housing for their citizens.
Oh man, I sure would have loved to live nowhere near my job and forgone most of my hobbies for nearly 3 years. There's definitely no reason why anyone would ever need to rent a SFH ever.
You can have temporary housing without landlords and rent. Just give whatever equity the landlord would have built up charging rent to the tenant.
Sure, no disagreement there. Just pointing out that apartments shouldn't be the only options for those not wanting to purchase a property
The question is what is the mechanism for that.
The most straightforward would be having them buy, then sell the house when done. Problem is that opens up a huge exposure for "needing" to sell in a certain window. A common rental scenario is college, where people move out 4 months before others are likely to move in. Even in the best of scenarios it might take months to try to sell the house, and that's very hard to do if you've moved hundreds of miles away and have to cover your housing expenses in two locations at the same time. It's worth it if that circumstance is suffered after 10 years or so, but certainly not worth it for a 6 month work assignment. To be clear, this prospect should be protected, and those that want to own rather than buy should have some of the market sheltered from rental manipulation.
If you instead have companies that as a matter of course buy up housing stock and "flip" the properties, without renting, to make sure there is an eager buyer at all times, you get the same problem of companies using their funds to assert supreme control over the housing stock.
If it's "a company is allowed to 'rent', but must provide tenant with an 'equity rebate' check on move out", well that would seem to make the business prospect rather unappealing from the company that would rent the hosing stock.
"Me me me me what about me" I'm sure people would also like to have a home to live in while they work 40 hours a week instead of being fucking homeless.
You're right, I am a selfish asshole and the only person on the entire planet who lives in an area that doesn't have the population density for an apartment complex to make sense, and I'm also the only person whose lifestyle conflicts with apartment living. My apologies for singlehandedly destroying the US housing market because I rented a SFH.
There’s definitely no reason why anyone would ever need to rent a SFH ever.
Are you insane?
Based on the first sentence, I assume that was sarcasm.
Which part? I'm really perplexed as to why someone would think nobody should "ever need to rent a SFH ever". Like they haven't heard of families or something.
I sure would have loved to live nowhere near my job and forgone most of my hobbies for nearly 3 year
Comment said that he would have loved to forgo his hobbies for 3 years. I'm pretty sure that would be sarcastic and not sincere.
I’m not sure if this comment is facetious or not but the world financial system also collapses pretty much instantly… The global economy is hooked on to real estate like a crackhead. Any sudden bans like the one suggested is likely to end in a greater and more immediate catastrophe.
As someone that works for a living that'd be a good thing. The parasitic draw the FIRE (Finance Insurance Real Estatr) economy has on my income would cease.
For who? The landlords? Oh nooooo
It'd probably take a lot of 401k balances with it. Which is the problem in a lot of economic things, the BS part of the economy is also holding everyone's retirement effectively hostage. So nuance is needed to get some progress over time.
So you wish to and can afford to buy a home right now? Are there even enough homes? If not, where will you live? How will such housing be provided for you and what will you offer in exchange?
Personally I'd like to see housing provided as a basic human right along with health care, income and a few other things but I'm guessing that's not happening any time soon. Interested to hear what you think of how this will work.
"The United States boasts approximately 15.1 million vacant homes, a staggering number that accounts for 10.5% of the country's total housing inventory."
There are enough homes for everyone
I'll get the trains ready to forcibly move the unhoused to where to where an empty house is...you wanna start rounding them up, or are you still busy finding them a job they're able to do so a bank will let them buy one of those houses?
Edit: the situation isn't as simple as you'd like it to be. If it were, it'd been solved already.
Found the landlord
Ok, that's great. So are we confiscating them? Or are we forcing the owners to rent them out, and if so who's paying? I'm serious - how would you approach this?
Landlords get 2 years to sell and after that if they still haven't sold they go to auction and get whatever money comes from that.
And to counter your 2nd argument I don't give a fuck how bad they get screwed. They should have thought about that before they decided to become leeches on society and profit from basic human rights.
Landlords get 2 years to sell and after that if they still haven’t sold they go to auction and get whatever money comes from that.
Are these just empty houses or all rental properties? Who are they selling the homes to? How will those people pay for them? Could those buyers, say, then rent out a room to help with the mortgage payments? And you say you don't care, but should people who put their money into a home and left it empty, say because of a divorce or some medical problem be penalized too? What about people who rent out a home that they inherited and don't want to sell because it has sentimental value? I assume in your mind this is a blanket forcing of people to sell or even forfeit an asset they paid for?
They should have thought about that before they decided to become leeches on society and profit from basic human rights.
I'm curious if your "leeches" characterization applies across the board. Logically if you think people who rent out physical spaces this should apply to anyone who rents out something of value... say their labor or a taxi driver or has a business where you pay to borrow something. Wouldn't those be "leeches" too?
I agree that housing is a basic human right, but unfortunately most of the rest of the world doesn't. And that means we don't have mechanisms for dealing with this and I'm troubled with some aspects of your ideas - it would be unfair to many. I know quite a few people who could only afford to buy a house by renting out a room or by creating an in-law apartment, backyard apartment and so on. They are landlords but I'm struggling to think of them as leeches. Would you call them all leeches?
What? All they have to do is evict their tenants and just keep their building vacant. Presto: they are no longer landlords, just mere property owners.
Oh cool, so now the innocent tenants are homeless. Maybe, if they are lucky, they are now competing with other similarly evicted folks for homes they can't afford, thus raising the already astronomical prices of housing even higher.
Brilliant!
I mean the law wouldn't just be "landlording is illegal" you have stuff in there to prevent these leeches from keeping them empty out of spite.
I would say that owning 3 homes for personal use is just fine and anymore than that is illegal. Also not hard to look at a landlord and see what properties they are renting out and what properties they live in and force them to sell the properties they use to rent out.
I don’t think you’ll see the results you want out of this. Instead what you’ll see is that the rental companies will shut down and divide up their properties among their shareholders so that each shareholder ends up with 3 houses (or whatever number you set as the limit). If there are too many houses and not enough shareholders then they will sell more shares until the numbers work out.
Do you think there are billions of share holders? That is a non problem.
Not billions, but thousands to millions. Many, many investments are owned by pension funds and the like. You know, regular people’s retirement funds.
You keep wanting there to be a villain in this story but it’s just not the case. Sometimes societal problems are caused by collective action with misaligned incentives.