3 ms·

> If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. But you understand that these people are renting because they ha

> If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? And I don't think "they cashed out" is the only explanation - there's also the possibility that they could no longer pay their property taxes. Your comment comes across as extremely tone deaf to the reality that a lot of people will always have to rent because they cannot afford to buy, because the only new things that get built are extremely expensive "luxury" apartment buildings.

tormeh 4y ago
This will continue as long as rising property values is seen as a good thing. That’s why local governments promote price growth through land-use regulations.
lelanthran 4y ago
> But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? That doesn't change the fact that renting is, by definition, non-permanent while ownership is permanent. What do you suggest as an alternative? That all ownership be done away with? That a special exception for ownership of things be made if the thing in question is land or houses? That ownership of things that is either land or houses be limited? Taxed higher? Government protecting the right to own things is the basis of civilisation. Residential renters have their own protections too, in many places, allowing for renters to sometimes live for extended periods rent-free. There are limits on the rental adjustments, limits on evictions, etc. A solution could be to encourage more housing to be built. Another one is to encourage economic development in other areas, so renters can move to other areas where they can afford to buy. Insisting that people should not have to move and should be able to purchase their own home where they are, AND if they want to rent, then they never have to move again is simply unreasonable and ridiculous.

tormeh 4y ago

This will continue as long as rising property values is seen as a good thing. That’s why local governments promote price growth through land-use regulations.

lelanthran 4y ago

> But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? That doesn't change the fact that renting is, by definition, non-permanent while ownership is permanent. What do you suggest as an alternative? That all ownership be done away with? That a special exception for ownership of things be made if the thing in question is land or houses? That ownership of things that is either land or houses be limited? Taxed higher? Government protecting the right to own things is the basis of civilisation. Residential renters have their own protections too, in many places, allowing for renters to sometimes live for extended periods rent-free. There are limits on the rental adjustments, limits on evictions, etc. A solution could be to encourage more housing to be built. Another one is to encourage economic development in other areas, so renters can move to other areas where they can afford to buy. Insisting that people should not have to move and should be able to purchase their own home where they are, AND if they want to rent, then they never have to move again is simply unreasonable and ridiculous.