• joao@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shame they’re in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren’t allowed to own a “few” rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a “few” rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There would just be less housing. Construction workers are workers too, and as much as it sucks, they aren’t going to put $50k of their own labor and materials at risk so that a person living paycheck to paycheck can own a home, regardless of how noble that pursuit might be.

      I also support radical action to end housing shortages and homelessness, and believe secure housing is a fundamental human right. If the government wanted to buy my properties at cost, using my own tax dollars, and gift them to those in need, I would support that. If they wanted to turn my current home into high density housing, I would support that. I am doing many things on my own, both through advocacy and direct action to address the real moral problem of housing. Unfortunately, I have no interest in being a smug slacktivist, so it often seems like lemmy doesn’t have any interest in my ideas.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not everyone wants to own and it can even be profitable not to… It’s like if the anti landlord movement wants to force ownership on everyone…

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So landlords should rent for the price of their mortgage only? What about when they’re done paying their mortgage, they should rent for free and take a risk that the person “renting” the place will damage it and the landlord then has to pay for the damage? What’s the incentive to rent then? Wouldn’t that create more scarcity? What about if they’re on a mortgage with variable rate, should the rent price vary every few months?