4 ms·

Frankly, this is an awful idea. Investment in real estate is basically the best way for the middle class to use their savings to build wealth and long-term fina

Frankly, this is an awful idea. Investment in real estate is basically the best way for the middle class to use their savings to build wealth and long-term financial stability. And I don't see how modern property law is geared toward the interest of small landlords. In every major city—i.e. the places with affordability problems—the laws are extremely friendly to tenants and hostile to landlords. Sure, there's the peculiarity of Prop 13 in California, but I don't see how you can generalize that to any other part of the country.

femiagbabiaka 5y ago
> Frankly, this is an awful idea. Investment in real estate is basically the best way for the middle class to use their savings to build wealth and long-term financial stability. There are a lot of things that are profitable but not good for society as a whole. Land as an investment vehicle is one of them. > And I don't see how modern property law is geared toward the interest of small landlords. In every major city—i.e. the places with affordability problems—the laws are extremely friendly to tenants and hostile to landlords. Sure, there's the peculiarity of Prop 13 in California, but I don't see how you can generalize that to any other part of the country. These policy wars are happening constantly in most densely populated parts of the US. Here's an article covering one example outside of California: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/06/do-renter-protections-reduce-rental-housing-supply https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/06/do-renter-protections-r.... I disagree with the characterization of status quo renters rights in the average American city as being hostile to landlords and friendly to renters -- what would be an example of a policy that you classify as being in this category?
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  For one, in many jurisdictions it can take two, three, even four months to evict a non-paying tenant. Many cities will give free attorneys to tenants being evicted. So now the landlord has a bunch of factually dubious and difficult to dispute allegations made against them.
  - femiagbabiaka 5y ago
    > For one, in many jurisdictions it can take two, three, even four months to evict a non-paying tenant. Eviction is a legal proceeding for a lot of good reasons for both tenant and rentier. You could say the process could be faster, but it is fair. > Many cities will give free attorneys to tenants being evicted. So now the landlord has a bunch of factually dubious to difficult to dispute allegations made against them. This sounds oddly specific.
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      Do you think that pro-tenant necessarily means unfair? I'm just saying that there are extensive tenant protections that make this a difficult space to operate in, especially if you serve low-income tenants who are more likely to become delinquent on rent or have behavioral issues. And when you have a free attorney and have no good case because you're just not paying your rent, your best bet is to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. Have you ever worked with lawyers. That's how every single lawsuit works. The initial complaint and counter-complaint has a bunch of claims, almost all of them legally or factually dubious, and they get whittled down over the course of motion practice. The whole point is that it's expensive and time-consuming and intimidating for the other side.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> Frankly, this is an awful idea. Investment in real estate is basically the best way for the middle class to use their savings to build wealth and long-term financial stability. Yeah, at the expense of everyone lower on the financial ladder than they are. Personally, I'd be ok with it being straight up illegal to own a residence you do not live in. A bunch of rich people might cry about it, but compared to the suffering of people living on the street or just struggling to pay outrageously inflated cost of basic shelter, I don't give a shit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

femiagbabiaka 5y ago

> Frankly, this is an awful idea. Investment in real estate is basically the best way for the middle class to use their savings to build wealth and long-term financial stability. There are a lot of things that are profitable but not good for society as a whole. Land as an investment vehicle is one of them. > And I don't see how modern property law is geared toward the interest of small landlords. In every major city—i.e. the places with affordability problems—the laws are extremely friendly to tenants and hostile to landlords. Sure, there's the peculiarity of Prop 13 in California, but I don't see how you can generalize that to any other part of the country. These policy wars are happening constantly in most densely populated parts of the US. Here's an article covering one example outside of California: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/06/do-renter-protections-reduce-rental-housing-supply https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/06/do-renter-protections-r.... I disagree with the characterization of status quo renters rights in the average American city as being hostile to landlords and friendly to renters -- what would be an example of a policy that you classify as being in this category?

legalcorrection 5y ago
For one, in many jurisdictions it can take two, three, even four months to evict a non-paying tenant. Many cities will give free attorneys to tenants being evicted. So now the landlord has a bunch of factually dubious and difficult to dispute allegations made against them.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  > For one, in many jurisdictions it can take two, three, even four months to evict a non-paying tenant. Eviction is a legal proceeding for a lot of good reasons for both tenant and rentier. You could say the process could be faster, but it is fair. > Many cities will give free attorneys to tenants being evicted. So now the landlord has a bunch of factually dubious to difficult to dispute allegations made against them. This sounds oddly specific.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    Do you think that pro-tenant necessarily means unfair? I'm just saying that there are extensive tenant protections that make this a difficult space to operate in, especially if you serve low-income tenants who are more likely to become delinquent on rent or have behavioral issues. And when you have a free attorney and have no good case because you're just not paying your rent, your best bet is to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. Have you ever worked with lawyers. That's how every single lawsuit works. The initial complaint and counter-complaint has a bunch of claims, almost all of them legally or factually dubious, and they get whittled down over the course of motion practice. The whole point is that it's expensive and time-consuming and intimidating for the other side.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> Frankly, this is an awful idea. Investment in real estate is basically the best way for the middle class to use their savings to build wealth and long-term financial stability. Yeah, at the expense of everyone lower on the financial ladder than they are. Personally, I'd be ok with it being straight up illegal to own a residence you do not live in. A bunch of rich people might cry about it, but compared to the suffering of people living on the street or just struggling to pay outrageously inflated cost of basic shelter, I don't give a shit.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]