5 ms·

> rather than risk-pooling and restitution to landlords when such harms do occur? How would this work? Would it be some kind of tenant paid for insurance for c

> rather than risk-pooling and restitution to landlords when such harms do occur? How would this work? Would it be some kind of tenant paid for insurance for compensating landlords?

dredmorbius 5y ago
I'll flip this back around: What mechanisms would be part of a sensible programme? What benefits would be required, and to what parties? Delivered in what manner?
- codefreeordie 5y ago
  The most straightforward and equitable solution to the problem is a fairly simple one: allow landlords to evict tenants who do not pay their rent. If you want to develop some housing-for-all plan, you can try to develop one, but it isn't particularly reasonable to just demand that property owners provide free housing out of the "goodness of their hearts"
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    You seem to be arguing against an imagined position rather than the one I've taken.
    - nullfield 5y ago
      Well, you did ask why this a problem “whose response is a risk-shifting onto tenants”, and the response is super-simple: “because it’s not their property”. If there were a whole bunch of laws that said that if you rented a, say, car you were making payments on to another person, that protected them from having to give it back even if they weren’t making payments until a court said so? …and while a court would rule that they owed you, the result would be a car you had to pay for that you couldn’t possess or use for months because court dates and enforcement were months out? …and further, even once the court said so, you’d still get a damaged/broken car along with a debt against someone you’d never be able to collect most of the time? You’d be real, real damn careful who you rented that car to. Same thing.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        And it's not your residence, in the sense of abode. The question of "propery" versus "residence" is one of values. There is no right or wrong answer between them, and the question of which is to be given higher consideration is a social construct. The answers chosen may well vary with time and circumstances. I've asked a few questions upstream in this thread. You might find value in giving a serious attempt at considering and answering them, perhaps from several viewpoints and value-bases.
- wolpoli 5y ago
  Someone could write a very interesting whitepaper on this. But I'll just sidestep it by noting that this problem formed under the current social/economic/political system and so many/most solutions proposed in that hypothetical whitepaper won't have a chance of being implemented.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    There's some truth to this. That said, determining 1) what the fundamental problem is and 2) what the desired end state might be is still useful even where 3) the path of Getting There From Here is unclear. And once points 1 & 2 have been addressed, there might be some additional clarity as to 3.

> rather than risk-pooling and restitution to landlords when such harms do occur? How would this work? Would it be some kind of tenant paid for insurance for compensating landlords?

dredmorbius 5y ago

I'll flip this back around: What mechanisms would be part of a sensible programme? What benefits would be required, and to what parties? Delivered in what manner?

codefreeordie 5y ago
The most straightforward and equitable solution to the problem is a fairly simple one: allow landlords to evict tenants who do not pay their rent. If you want to develop some housing-for-all plan, you can try to develop one, but it isn't particularly reasonable to just demand that property owners provide free housing out of the "goodness of their hearts"
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  You seem to be arguing against an imagined position rather than the one I've taken.
  - nullfield 5y ago
    Well, you did ask why this a problem “whose response is a risk-shifting onto tenants”, and the response is super-simple: “because it’s not their property”. If there were a whole bunch of laws that said that if you rented a, say, car you were making payments on to another person, that protected them from having to give it back even if they weren’t making payments until a court said so? …and while a court would rule that they owed you, the result would be a car you had to pay for that you couldn’t possess or use for months because court dates and enforcement were months out? …and further, even once the court said so, you’d still get a damaged/broken car along with a debt against someone you’d never be able to collect most of the time? You’d be real, real damn careful who you rented that car to. Same thing.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      And it's not your residence, in the sense of abode. The question of "propery" versus "residence" is one of values. There is no right or wrong answer between them, and the question of which is to be given higher consideration is a social construct. The answers chosen may well vary with time and circumstances. I've asked a few questions upstream in this thread. You might find value in giving a serious attempt at considering and answering them, perhaps from several viewpoints and value-bases.
wolpoli 5y ago
Someone could write a very interesting whitepaper on this. But I'll just sidestep it by noting that this problem formed under the current social/economic/political system and so many/most solutions proposed in that hypothetical whitepaper won't have a chance of being implemented.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  There's some truth to this. That said, determining 1) what the fundamental problem is and 2) what the desired end state might be is still useful even where 3) the path of Getting There From Here is unclear. And once points 1 & 2 have been addressed, there might be some additional clarity as to 3.