4 ms·
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 reco
by 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 agoWoah, 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 agoIt 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.