21 ms·

The solution to the "housing crisis" is to establish a sensible legal framework that allows dense housing to: - be owned by the individuals that live there if

The solution to the "housing crisis" is to establish a sensible legal framework that allows dense housing to: - be owned by the individuals that live there if they choose to do so (renting should be a choice; owning should have similar accessibility) - have a sensible framework for both renting and ownership that empowers the individuals actually living there e.g. no onerous lease crap or leasehold shenanigans - actually be built e.g. kill off silly zoning This sounds like none of those. In most countries established interests block it. Hacking around it by just deciding that the way previous generations lived a happy life is inaccessible now and everyone should just live in Uber Flats is not the answer, sorry.

fyfy18 7y ago
If as a renter you are free to do what you want in an apartment (on par with ownership, so if you end up damaging another apartment or the common areas you are responsible), and can't be kicked out because the landlord decides they want more money, I'm not sure if you would ever want to own a property. Excluding "investment opportunities" of course.
- ohazi 7y ago
  I have never seen a rental property where this was the standard. What you've actually just described is one of the best reasons to buy: As long as you pay your mortgage and property taxes and don't have an HOA, basically nobody is going to bother you.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Sure. Is this a bad thing? That's how most social housing in the UK worked until a decade or two ago. The home I grew up in was rented by my parents for over 20 years, they basically treated it as if they owned it. We bought it recently because this may change at some point in the future. Practically other than the rent not existing nothing changes. The model of a home as being this ephemeral thing that you just sort of occupy for a bit and then move on to the next town isn't one that most people actually want. It's prevalent on Hacker News because there are a ton of people here with no family, no plans to form a family, and for whom moving around often for work is normal. Which is fine, but it's not representative of the general population.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > Sure. Is this a bad thing? For the people stuck owning it, yes. Why would I want to rent out a property under those terms? I'm assuming most of the risk for the asset, but giving up almost all control of it.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Most people renting have far less autonomy than even that choice whether to rent out their assets or not.

fyfy18 7y ago

If as a renter you are free to do what you want in an apartment (on par with ownership, so if you end up damaging another apartment or the common areas you are responsible), and can't be kicked out because the landlord decides they want more money, I'm not sure if you would ever want to own a property. Excluding "investment opportunities" of course.

ohazi 7y ago
I have never seen a rental property where this was the standard. What you've actually just described is one of the best reasons to buy: As long as you pay your mortgage and property taxes and don't have an HOA, basically nobody is going to bother you.
esotericn 7y ago
Sure. Is this a bad thing? That's how most social housing in the UK worked until a decade or two ago. The home I grew up in was rented by my parents for over 20 years, they basically treated it as if they owned it. We bought it recently because this may change at some point in the future. Practically other than the rent not existing nothing changes. The model of a home as being this ephemeral thing that you just sort of occupy for a bit and then move on to the next town isn't one that most people actually want. It's prevalent on Hacker News because there are a ton of people here with no family, no plans to form a family, and for whom moving around often for work is normal. Which is fine, but it's not representative of the general population.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > Sure. Is this a bad thing? For the people stuck owning it, yes. Why would I want to rent out a property under those terms? I'm assuming most of the risk for the asset, but giving up almost all control of it.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Most people renting have far less autonomy than even that choice whether to rent out their assets or not.