4 ms·

Ask HN: Why not have a society where renting an apartment/house is illegal?

6 points by amichail 3y ago

Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead?

aristofun 3y ago
[flagged]
- jleyank 3y ago
  Nah, just a shill for the banking or residential property business (or somebody stuck with a number of condo's that aren't selling as well as desired). 5-20% down doesn't grow on trees, people tend to move for employment, residential property can be (very) illiquid, ... Perhaps we should argue that we should forbid property ownership, with housing provided as a general good. This would enable people to use what money they have for more constructive actions than dumping it in a hole in the ground. Arguments like this go both way and generate a whole lot of smoke with virtually no fire. Edit: was early, should have considered the question as satire as was suggested. Sorry.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Nah, just a shill for the banking or residential property business (or somebody stuck with a number of condo's that aren't selling as well as desired). Or, you know, just someone with an opinion, possibly ill-thought, that is asking about it... "Shills for the banking or residential property business" job is not to ask such questions in an internet forum to see what others think. Those work in government, PR, NGOs, think tanks, and so on.
    - jleyank 3y ago
      Social media is the new battleground. Trolls troll where the trolling is good.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Laws are written and passed, and deals are cut, at the old battleground. Nobody at these levels really gives a real damn about public opinion, including voter opinion. If they did, the amount of unpopular and even openly hostile laws and moves wouldn't be a thing.
        jleyank 3y ago
        Au contraire, they care deeply about public opinion. It’s just not the typical HN reader community - it’s the primary voters, particularly those on the right flank. These people are dangerous if hungry.
  - aristofun 3y ago
    My point is that you don't fix society by banning stuff left and right. It just makes thing worse and I'm sad many people even on HN don't realize that.
arshbot 3y ago
Is this satire? What option would someone have if they’re: 1. Unable to commit to a location long term (students, seasonal workers, people trying to find their fit) 2. Unable to fiscally purchase property (not everyone can just buy a condo 3. Unable to fiscally commit to a property/location - many people have dynamic incomes over time. What they can afford one year may not be the same the next. Many people have unstable living situations one way or another, and I put myself in this category. People like the verbiage of “landlords do nothing” but in reality they take on the risk of property ownership so people forced to think short term don’t have to.
MattGaiser 3y ago
What are people who cannot provide a down payment but require housing supposed to do?
PaulHoule 3y ago
90% of people in China own a "home", but frequently that is a condominium in a large building. Unfortunately condominiums have intractable governance problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse specifically seniors on a "fixed income" will never vote to make capital improvements even if these could save their life. Contrast that to a building owned by someone who owns a lot of buildings and has access to capital who really could finance repairs that keep buildings safe and habitable. One could make the case that homeownership is frequently a scam. Look at the 2008 crisis in the U.S. or similar developments that are ongoing in China. For a certain time, constantly rising house prices make life easy for many people, but eventually prices get too high and young people can't get started on the housing ladder. People owning their own houses is a major reason why people are stuck in economically depressed areas and can't afford to move to areas with opportunity. It's also fashionable to complain about landlords in 2023. Frankly it pisses me off right now because I have been struggling to remove a tenant (in a second house on my farm) who has not been paying the rent for a long time and has a sense of entitlement as high as the sky.
- badpun 3y ago
  > Unfortunately condominiums have intractable governance problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse > specifically seniors on a "fixed income" will never vote to make capital improvements even if these could save their life. Contrast that to a building owned by someone who owns a lot of buildings and has access to capital who really could finance repairs that keep buildings safe and habitable. It's very similar situations in Poland (most people live in condos they own), and repairs and improvements are done all the time. Perhaps it's just a matter of wealth of the residents.
coldtea 3y ago
>Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead? They would be better off if they _owned_ a house (as opposed to have to rent with nothing to show for after they stop paying, and the ever-present threat of not affording to make the rent and ending up homeless - someone with a home is much more resilient to such pressure). Not if they _had to_ buy one... If they're barely making ends meet, this would be a burden they couldn't afford or recover from. It would also make moving (e.g. to study or work in another area) much more difficult. Of course this would also have benefits, like making people tie with and appreciate/help to improve their area more, as opposed to viewing it as a temporary residence. But this is more about encouraging people to find/have roots, than to forcing them to own a house.
mindcrime 3y ago
Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead? In this context, I don't care about "most people" - I care about me. And to use myself as an example - I rent an apartment because A. I like the freedom of not being tied down to a mortgage and a physical property, and B. I like not having to worry about maintenance. If the water heater goes out or the roof leaks, I am not on the hook to deal with it. Going back to point (a) above - it's a lot easier for me to just pick up and move when I'm living in an apartment. Buying a house would have a much stronger effect of tying me to the place I'm currently living. So unless I'm 100% sold that "this is absolutely where I need and want to be for the foreseeable future" then that's a negative for buying a house. And I think "most people" would prefer to have the freedom to make their own choices on matters like this.
- amichail 3y ago
  If you don't want to worry about maintenance, then maybe you could pay for a company to do inspections and maintenance whenever required. However, unlike rent, this would be completely optional and could be stopped at any time without losing your home.
  - mindcrime 3y ago
    And now you've added one more variable to the equation, for no additional benefit. Hard pass from me, thanks.
Ekaros 3y ago
The actual issue is that there isn't enough social housing. That is public or non-profit housing that is build and rented out at lifetime cost. This would allow cheap enough supply on market pushing the market rates for slightly more upmarket options lower.
iExploder 3y ago
ideally each city would own a non profit company that rents out city apartments, both long and short term to people who move into the city for work. as long as you work in the city you can keep using the apartment and pay rent that would be used to renovate / maintain / build apartments. once you are ready to retire or accumulated enough money you have the option to buy your own property outside of the city. profit based property renting as a form of income in heavily populated areas should not be allowed, or at least it should be regulated. B&B / hotels are allowed.
- badpun 3y ago
  > profit based property renting as a form of income in heavily populated areas should not be allowed, or at least it should be regulated. Your scheme also generates profit, but there's only one monopolistic landlord - the city.
  - iExploder 3y ago
    what I mean is it does not generate profit for shareholders or the city, instead it has to reinvest it into the business in full, hence non profit.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Because this is a free land. If you're proposing to take something that is currently legal, and make it illegal, the burden of proof is on you. It's not on us to prove why it should still be legal. > Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead? 1) Some would; some wouldn't. Let's say I know I'm going to move in a year. Great, I sign a one year lease; when it's over I just walk away. But if I have to buy instead, I have to sell at the end of the year, which takes more time and effort (and an unpredictable amount of time), and which costs me 6% of the price of the house. 2) "They'd be better off" (economically) is not grounds to force them, even if true.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
* buying a house costs a shit ton of money in closing costs, fees, taxes, etc. IMO we oughta ban real estate ages before we ban renting * but if I want to move, now I have to eat a $40k set of fees just to change houses. Fuck that. * if I don't plan on staying somewhere for 10 years, it's just way easier to rent * renting means outsourcing maintenance, property taxes, and other tasks * to buy you need a lot of capital, and even if income is high you need spare cash; it may not be feasible. For example I lived in Australia for 2 years. Why would I buy a house there? I also was in the USMC at one point and lived in California (among other places). Buying a house was a terrible idea since I had no idea if I'd be around, or get moved elsewhere. Was I gonna try to rent that, and chase down tenants while in Iraq? Hell no.

6 points by amichail 3y ago

Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead?

aristofun 3y ago

[flagged]

jleyank 3y ago
Nah, just a shill for the banking or residential property business (or somebody stuck with a number of condo's that aren't selling as well as desired). 5-20% down doesn't grow on trees, people tend to move for employment, residential property can be (very) illiquid, ... Perhaps we should argue that we should forbid property ownership, with housing provided as a general good. This would enable people to use what money they have for more constructive actions than dumping it in a hole in the ground. Arguments like this go both way and generate a whole lot of smoke with virtually no fire. Edit: was early, should have considered the question as satire as was suggested. Sorry.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Nah, just a shill for the banking or residential property business (or somebody stuck with a number of condo's that aren't selling as well as desired). Or, you know, just someone with an opinion, possibly ill-thought, that is asking about it... "Shills for the banking or residential property business" job is not to ask such questions in an internet forum to see what others think. Those work in government, PR, NGOs, think tanks, and so on.
  - jleyank 3y ago
    Social media is the new battleground. Trolls troll where the trolling is good.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Laws are written and passed, and deals are cut, at the old battleground. Nobody at these levels really gives a real damn about public opinion, including voter opinion. If they did, the amount of unpopular and even openly hostile laws and moves wouldn't be a thing.
      - jleyank 3y ago
        Au contraire, they care deeply about public opinion. It’s just not the typical HN reader community - it’s the primary voters, particularly those on the right flank. These people are dangerous if hungry.
- aristofun 3y ago
  My point is that you don't fix society by banning stuff left and right. It just makes thing worse and I'm sad many people even on HN don't realize that.

arshbot 3y ago

Is this satire? What option would someone have if they’re: 1. Unable to commit to a location long term (students, seasonal workers, people trying to find their fit) 2. Unable to fiscally purchase property (not everyone can just buy a condo 3. Unable to fiscally commit to a property/location - many people have dynamic incomes over time. What they can afford one year may not be the same the next. Many people have unstable living situations one way or another, and I put myself in this category. People like the verbiage of “landlords do nothing” but in reality they take on the risk of property ownership so people forced to think short term don’t have to.

MattGaiser 3y ago

What are people who cannot provide a down payment but require housing supposed to do?

PaulHoule 3y ago

90% of people in China own a "home", but frequently that is a condominium in a large building. Unfortunately condominiums have intractable governance problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse specifically seniors on a "fixed income" will never vote to make capital improvements even if these could save their life. Contrast that to a building owned by someone who owns a lot of buildings and has access to capital who really could finance repairs that keep buildings safe and habitable. One could make the case that homeownership is frequently a scam. Look at the 2008 crisis in the U.S. or similar developments that are ongoing in China. For a certain time, constantly rising house prices make life easy for many people, but eventually prices get too high and young people can't get started on the housing ladder. People owning their own houses is a major reason why people are stuck in economically depressed areas and can't afford to move to areas with opportunity. It's also fashionable to complain about landlords in 2023. Frankly it pisses me off right now because I have been struggling to remove a tenant (in a second house on my farm) who has not been paying the rent for a long time and has a sense of entitlement as high as the sky.

badpun 3y ago
> Unfortunately condominiums have intractable governance problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse > specifically seniors on a "fixed income" will never vote to make capital improvements even if these could save their life. Contrast that to a building owned by someone who owns a lot of buildings and has access to capital who really could finance repairs that keep buildings safe and habitable. It's very similar situations in Poland (most people live in condos they own), and repairs and improvements are done all the time. Perhaps it's just a matter of wealth of the residents.

coldtea 3y ago

>Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead? They would be better off if they _owned_ a house (as opposed to have to rent with nothing to show for after they stop paying, and the ever-present threat of not affording to make the rent and ending up homeless - someone with a home is much more resilient to such pressure). Not if they _had to_ buy one... If they're barely making ends meet, this would be a burden they couldn't afford or recover from. It would also make moving (e.g. to study or work in another area) much more difficult. Of course this would also have benefits, like making people tie with and appreciate/help to improve their area more, as opposed to viewing it as a temporary residence. But this is more about encouraging people to find/have roots, than to forcing them to own a house.

mindcrime 3y ago

Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead? In this context, I don't care about "most people" - I care about me. And to use myself as an example - I rent an apartment because A. I like the freedom of not being tied down to a mortgage and a physical property, and B. I like not having to worry about maintenance. If the water heater goes out or the roof leaks, I am not on the hook to deal with it. Going back to point (a) above - it's a lot easier for me to just pick up and move when I'm living in an apartment. Buying a house would have a much stronger effect of tying me to the place I'm currently living. So unless I'm 100% sold that "this is absolutely where I need and want to be for the foreseeable future" then that's a negative for buying a house. And I think "most people" would prefer to have the freedom to make their own choices on matters like this.

amichail 3y ago
If you don't want to worry about maintenance, then maybe you could pay for a company to do inspections and maintenance whenever required. However, unlike rent, this would be completely optional and could be stopped at any time without losing your home.
- mindcrime 3y ago
  And now you've added one more variable to the equation, for no additional benefit. Hard pass from me, thanks.

Ekaros 3y ago

The actual issue is that there isn't enough social housing. That is public or non-profit housing that is build and rented out at lifetime cost. This would allow cheap enough supply on market pushing the market rates for slightly more upmarket options lower.

iExploder 3y ago

ideally each city would own a non profit company that rents out city apartments, both long and short term to people who move into the city for work. as long as you work in the city you can keep using the apartment and pay rent that would be used to renovate / maintain / build apartments. once you are ready to retire or accumulated enough money you have the option to buy your own property outside of the city. profit based property renting as a form of income in heavily populated areas should not be allowed, or at least it should be regulated. B&B / hotels are allowed.

badpun 3y ago
> profit based property renting as a form of income in heavily populated areas should not be allowed, or at least it should be regulated. Your scheme also generates profit, but there's only one monopolistic landlord - the city.
- iExploder 3y ago
  what I mean is it does not generate profit for shareholders or the city, instead it has to reinvest it into the business in full, hence non profit.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Because this is a free land. If you're proposing to take something that is currently legal, and make it illegal, the burden of proof is on you. It's not on us to prove why it should still be legal. > Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead? 1) Some would; some wouldn't. Let's say I know I'm going to move in a year. Great, I sign a one year lease; when it's over I just walk away. But if I have to buy instead, I have to sell at the end of the year, which takes more time and effort (and an unpredictable amount of time), and which costs me 6% of the price of the house. 2) "They'd be better off" (economically) is not grounds to force them, even if true.

red-iron-pine 3y ago

* buying a house costs a shit ton of money in closing costs, fees, taxes, etc. IMO we oughta ban real estate ages before we ban renting * but if I want to move, now I have to eat a $40k set of fees just to change houses. Fuck that. * if I don't plan on staying somewhere for 10 years, it's just way easier to rent * renting means outsourcing maintenance, property taxes, and other tasks * to buy you need a lot of capital, and even if income is high you need spare cash; it may not be feasible. For example I lived in Australia for 2 years. Why would I buy a house there? I also was in the USMC at one point and lived in California (among other places). Buying a house was a terrible idea since I had no idea if I'd be around, or get moved elsewhere. Was I gonna try to rent that, and chase down tenants while in Iraq? Hell no.