5 ms·

There’s a difference between losing some of your passive income versus losing the home you live in. Landlord are absolutely fine.

by lucian1900 5y ago

olivermarks 5y ago
There are many people who previously scraped together money to buy rental income homes who have really struggled during the eviction moratorium. It is very expensive to maintain rental properties in California and the eviction moratorium has made it possible for people to get federal relief money via California but not pay their rent. The idea 'landlords' are heartless, louche smug rentier folks is not born out in the vast majority of cases. This is Newsom buying votes to try to prevent the recall IMO, along with other cash handouts and showboating going on. A sensible solution 12 months ago would have been to pay renters rent for them directly, but that wouldn't have been as desirable politically.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  The vast majority of rental properties are owned by people who aren’t even remotely close to struggling. You can verify that both statistically (richer landlords own more properties) and anecdotally as a renter. Housing would also be far cheaper if it wasn’t common to speculate on it, by landlords small and large. It used to be, in fact. A far more sensible solution would be to outlaw owning a property one doesn’t live in, so housing prices would come down to levels where us renters would be able to buy. An in-between solution would be massive social housing programmes, so people can rent much more cheaply from a non-profit entity. After all, building housing is a tiny fraction of the cost of housing, the rest is all speculation.
  - spfzero 5y ago
    The largest fraction is the value of the land. The land is not more expensive because landlords own it, rather than homeowners. It's expensive because more people want to live on it, whether they own or rent. People want to live in certain areas, due to proximity to jobs, nice weather, transportation etc. Homeowners speculate too. It would be hard to find someone buying a home who was not considering its future value.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      Is that true? Arguably the vast majority of the value of the land is also due to speculation. After all, most cities have large numbers of unoccupied homes, owned merely as a financial instrument.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        I haven't seen any unoccupied home that wasn't under immediate repair in a city in awhile. Not in bigger cities. The prices are going up so vacant places get sold if unneeded.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        London and Dublin famously both have large numbers of luxury homes entirely unoccupied, used as investment vehicles. The number of empty homes in fact exceeds the number of homeless people.
        ipaddr 5y ago
        The parent comment said North America. Property rights seem different in England.. if someone moved into that vacant home for 7 years they can claim the right not to be removed. I guess these big homes have security.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        They’re mostly luxury flats in central areas, requiring little in the way of security. Squatting is impractical in this case.
  - awillen 5y ago
    Outlaw owning property that one doesn't live in means that anyone who can't afford to buy is homeless, because renting is illegal. That's not a sensible solution. You say "us renters would be able to buy" but you're probably not someone who's living paycheck to paycheck. Those people can't afford to buy even if real estate prices drop dramatically.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      The state or local authorities could easily rent out to those that do not own, social housing already exists and used to be far more common. Entire countries had nothing but social housing before 89. Private landlords aren’t the only way renting can work. A single minimum wage used to be enough for a family to get a mortgage, that has not been true in many decades in most countries.
    - alephu5 5y ago
      If you can afford to pay someone else's mortgage + profit (through rent) you can afford to buy.
      - russellendicott 5y ago
        But for 30 years straight?
      - awillen 5y ago
        C'mon, you have to see the flaw in this. There's a difference between making a monthly payment and having a large amount saved up.
      - rmk 5y ago
        You are assuming that your rental payment > mortgage payment based on current market value of the property. That's absolutely not the case in the majority of situations (which is why people choose to rent vs. own: you can live in a property that you would never be able to afford to buy, if you choose to rent). Rents are often a good deal because the landlord does not want to sell, but have a source of passive income, have the house be occupied and close to cash-flow positive while it grows in value over decades (a nice nest-egg) etc. You truly can not determine if you can afford to buy a place until you take a multitude of factors into account, and they vary for each person and each property.

There’s a difference between losing some of your passive income versus losing the home you live in. Landlord are absolutely fine.

olivermarks 5y ago

There are many people who previously scraped together money to buy rental income homes who have really struggled during the eviction moratorium. It is very expensive to maintain rental properties in California and the eviction moratorium has made it possible for people to get federal relief money via California but not pay their rent. The idea 'landlords' are heartless, louche smug rentier folks is not born out in the vast majority of cases. This is Newsom buying votes to try to prevent the recall IMO, along with other cash handouts and showboating going on. A sensible solution 12 months ago would have been to pay renters rent for them directly, but that wouldn't have been as desirable politically.

lucian1900 5y ago
The vast majority of rental properties are owned by people who aren’t even remotely close to struggling. You can verify that both statistically (richer landlords own more properties) and anecdotally as a renter. Housing would also be far cheaper if it wasn’t common to speculate on it, by landlords small and large. It used to be, in fact. A far more sensible solution would be to outlaw owning a property one doesn’t live in, so housing prices would come down to levels where us renters would be able to buy. An in-between solution would be massive social housing programmes, so people can rent much more cheaply from a non-profit entity. After all, building housing is a tiny fraction of the cost of housing, the rest is all speculation.
- spfzero 5y ago
  The largest fraction is the value of the land. The land is not more expensive because landlords own it, rather than homeowners. It's expensive because more people want to live on it, whether they own or rent. People want to live in certain areas, due to proximity to jobs, nice weather, transportation etc. Homeowners speculate too. It would be hard to find someone buying a home who was not considering its future value.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Is that true? Arguably the vast majority of the value of the land is also due to speculation. After all, most cities have large numbers of unoccupied homes, owned merely as a financial instrument.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      I haven't seen any unoccupied home that wasn't under immediate repair in a city in awhile. Not in bigger cities. The prices are going up so vacant places get sold if unneeded.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        London and Dublin famously both have large numbers of luxury homes entirely unoccupied, used as investment vehicles. The number of empty homes in fact exceeds the number of homeless people.
        ipaddr 5y ago
        The parent comment said North America. Property rights seem different in England.. if someone moved into that vacant home for 7 years they can claim the right not to be removed. I guess these big homes have security.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        They’re mostly luxury flats in central areas, requiring little in the way of security. Squatting is impractical in this case.
- awillen 5y ago
  Outlaw owning property that one doesn't live in means that anyone who can't afford to buy is homeless, because renting is illegal. That's not a sensible solution. You say "us renters would be able to buy" but you're probably not someone who's living paycheck to paycheck. Those people can't afford to buy even if real estate prices drop dramatically.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    The state or local authorities could easily rent out to those that do not own, social housing already exists and used to be far more common. Entire countries had nothing but social housing before 89. Private landlords aren’t the only way renting can work. A single minimum wage used to be enough for a family to get a mortgage, that has not been true in many decades in most countries.
  - alephu5 5y ago
    If you can afford to pay someone else's mortgage + profit (through rent) you can afford to buy.
    - russellendicott 5y ago
      But for 30 years straight?
    - awillen 5y ago
      C'mon, you have to see the flaw in this. There's a difference between making a monthly payment and having a large amount saved up.
    - rmk 5y ago
      You are assuming that your rental payment > mortgage payment based on current market value of the property. That's absolutely not the case in the majority of situations (which is why people choose to rent vs. own: you can live in a property that you would never be able to afford to buy, if you choose to rent). Rents are often a good deal because the landlord does not want to sell, but have a source of passive income, have the house be occupied and close to cash-flow positive while it grows in value over decades (a nice nest-egg) etc. You truly can not determine if you can afford to buy a place until you take a multitude of factors into account, and they vary for each person and each property.