3 ms·

> aka forcing them out of their homes They aren't theirs. They're renters.

Fargren 6y ago
"Your home" means the place where you live. It's not the same as "your house", which is a building that you own. Evicting a renter is kicking someone out of their home.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  “Your” here is like with a chain - as strong as a weakest link in the chain. Creating your home in someone else’s property doesn’t really make it yours overall.
  - asdff 6y ago
    You don't really own your house either. Stop paying your mortgage, stop paying taxes, watch you eventually end up the same as someone who stops paying their rent, just through a slightly different bureaucratic process. Sometimes you might not have the liberty to freely modify your home, much like a lease.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      Yeah, totally. But you have very different risk profile in terms of likelihood of you being kicked out - your expenses are much more predictable than with renting. Capitalism approach heavily prefers owning vs renting.
      - yibg 6y ago
        I'm not following your point here. Renting is not the same as owning correct. But the topic is rent control, how does ownership play into this?
omginternets 6y ago
It might not be their apartment (or house or whatever), but it damn-sure is their home. First-world jurisdictions (including all 50 US states) universally recognize that eviction is a big deal, and that it is not equivalent to forfeiting any old rented property. Accordingly, landlords cannot do whatever they please just because they own four walls, a floor and a roof. Of all the things you could nit-pick, I can't even begin to understand why you would choose this. Your point is not only pedantic and cringe-inducing, it also betrays callousness beyond that of even American courts. This is truly an accomplishment. Bravo.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Woah, slow down. I’m not arguing that eviction isn’t a big deal, or that renters have no rights. By renting you’re in a (heavily regulated) business relationship with an owner, and they own the property. Growing overly attached to something that you don’t own, and calling it yours is risky. I know that tons of people don’t have luxury of owning their places, but that’s how our capitalism world works - ownership is king.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    It depends on the property. A purpose built apartment building owned by a property company (of which there are many in European towns/cities) can easily be a home for large part of person (or families) life. There are also fairly strong renters rights in many European countries, unless the tenant wants to move they don't have to. Renting a converted property or whole house from a small landlord could mean they decide they want it back with short notice, at least that is the situation in the UK. Assuming that will be a home long term is a bad idea.

"Your home" means the place where you live. It's not the same as "your house", which is a building that you own. Evicting a renter is kicking someone out of their home.

justapassenger 6y ago
“Your” here is like with a chain - as strong as a weakest link in the chain. Creating your home in someone else’s property doesn’t really make it yours overall.
- asdff 6y ago
  You don't really own your house either. Stop paying your mortgage, stop paying taxes, watch you eventually end up the same as someone who stops paying their rent, just through a slightly different bureaucratic process. Sometimes you might not have the liberty to freely modify your home, much like a lease.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    Yeah, totally. But you have very different risk profile in terms of likelihood of you being kicked out - your expenses are much more predictable than with renting. Capitalism approach heavily prefers owning vs renting.
    - yibg 6y ago
      I'm not following your point here. Renting is not the same as owning correct. But the topic is rent control, how does ownership play into this?

omginternets 6y ago

It might not be their apartment (or house or whatever), but it damn-sure is their home. First-world jurisdictions (including all 50 US states) universally recognize that eviction is a big deal, and that it is not equivalent to forfeiting any old rented property. Accordingly, landlords cannot do whatever they please just because they own four walls, a floor and a roof. Of all the things you could nit-pick, I can't even begin to understand why you would choose this. Your point is not only pedantic and cringe-inducing, it also betrays callousness beyond that of even American courts. This is truly an accomplishment. Bravo.

justapassenger 6y ago
Woah, slow down. I’m not arguing that eviction isn’t a big deal, or that renters have no rights. By renting you’re in a (heavily regulated) business relationship with an owner, and they own the property. Growing overly attached to something that you don’t own, and calling it yours is risky. I know that tons of people don’t have luxury of owning their places, but that’s how our capitalism world works - ownership is king.
- phatfish 6y ago
  It depends on the property. A purpose built apartment building owned by a property company (of which there are many in European towns/cities) can easily be a home for large part of person (or families) life. There are also fairly strong renters rights in many European countries, unless the tenant wants to move they don't have to. Renting a converted property or whole house from a small landlord could mean they decide they want it back with short notice, at least that is the situation in the UK. Assuming that will be a home long term is a bad idea.