4 ms·

It's gentrificators that become anti-gentrification activists once they secured their gain. The "gain" in this case is: 1) Getting to transform a neighbourhoo

It's gentrificators that become anti-gentrification activists once they secured their gain. The "gain" in this case is: 1) Getting to transform a neighbourhood (that you weren't a part of before) however it fancies you, while simultaneously prohibiting those that come after you from doing the same. 2) locking in the low rents you have to pay. While keeping supply of housing artificially low you're thus increasing the rent-gap between what you have to pay and those that move in after you. As the other commenters noted, Germany has a low home-ownership rate (good thing IMO but a whole different story). Because of strict laws on how to increase rents, gentrificators can secure themselves the low rents from before gentrification. It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
killjoywashere 8y ago
> It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent In the US, it is not uncommon that one neighbor homeowner next door pays two times your mortgage. I would be interested in your story about home-ownership, but difference in pricing due to time of arrival doesn't seem like a differentiator between renting and buying.
- woodpanel 8y ago
  if I get you right, you want to know the reasons why I‘m in favor of low-ownership rates. On top of my head: - Economics of scale: housing companies provide more quality/ € than your landlord that owns one flat or even what most owner-occupiers can reasonably provide for themself. - Real Estate is a Commodity, yes. Owning that is an investment, yes. But living in one isn‘t. It’s a product that you use. We should stop telling people otherwise. A house is not your retirement. - Austria, Germany and Switzerland are the countries with the world‘s lowest home-ownership rate. Putting them in that order, you also get their GDPs (Switzerland being the richest) as well as the lowest ownership-rate. That clarifies some myths: a) that low rate has anything to do with WW2 (it doesn’t) b) that high ownership rates benefit the people (it doesn’t, Third world countries have ownership rates topping 90%)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

killjoywashere 8y ago

> It is not uncommon that one neighbour tenant in the same house pays two times your rent In the US, it is not uncommon that one neighbor homeowner next door pays two times your mortgage. I would be interested in your story about home-ownership, but difference in pricing due to time of arrival doesn't seem like a differentiator between renting and buying.

woodpanel 8y ago
if I get you right, you want to know the reasons why I‘m in favor of low-ownership rates. On top of my head: - Economics of scale: housing companies provide more quality/ € than your landlord that owns one flat or even what most owner-occupiers can reasonably provide for themself. - Real Estate is a Commodity, yes. Owning that is an investment, yes. But living in one isn‘t. It’s a product that you use. We should stop telling people otherwise. A house is not your retirement. - Austria, Germany and Switzerland are the countries with the world‘s lowest home-ownership rate. Putting them in that order, you also get their GDPs (Switzerland being the richest) as well as the lowest ownership-rate. That clarifies some myths: a) that low rate has anything to do with WW2 (it doesn’t) b) that high ownership rates benefit the people (it doesn’t, Third world countries have ownership rates topping 90%)