4 ms·
The article specifies that the people are buying, not renting, the houses, and they're even subject to rules (probably an HOA) saying they cannot rent the homes
by smeej 4y ago
The article specifies that the people are buying, not renting, the houses, and they're even subject to rules (probably an HOA) saying they cannot rent the homes to others. If they want to sell in the first 3 years, the company has an option to buy the house back for what it was sold for, and for four years after that, the company has right of first refusal to buy the house at market rate.
This sounds like a fairly reasonable compromise to me, though it's far from the only model that would make sense.
- ldhough 4y agoI've seen people say this a few times here but the article says: "a growing number of employers around the country have decided to build their own housing for workers, mostly for them to rent but sometimes to buy."
- smeej 4y agoAnd if you read past the introduction, you'll find the article is about one specific instance, which is what people are talking about.
- ldhough 4y agoI did read that but it seemed pretty clear that the comment thread and the comment you were responding to were not in fact discussing one specific instance, but rather the broader phenomenon: > these company investments ... > If the companies ... > Having your employer [not "having Cook"] as your landlord ... Although given that your comment was clearly about the case study I should have made clearer that my intent was to communicate that just because Cook isn't renting the houses that the parent commenter's concerns are still valid because more companies are.