4 ms·

I don't have well-defined reasoning for this, so maybe somebody else can expand on it: But it feels fundamentally wrong that detached, single-family (zoning res

• munksbeer 2y ago
  > But it feels fundamentally wrong that detached, single-family (zoning restricted) homes are allowed to be purchased by investment firms & exclusively used as rentals. I know what you're saying, and I agree, but playing devil's advocate here, you could imagine a society where there are no owner occupied dwellings at all, everyone rents. In theory, it would actually be a great equaliser because anyone could invest in the property owning corporations for a return of that income, and you wouldn't have some people becoming stupidly rich for no reason other than sitting in a house that happens to increase massively in price. (I am of course speaking of an imaginary world where tenants rights were at the top and they couldn't just be removed from a home at the whim of the landlord).
  • gottorf 2y ago
    > an imaginary world where tenants rights were at the top and they couldn't just be removed from a home at the whim of the landlord On the contrary, strong tenants' rights are correlated with higher rents and worse availability of rentals; or it is at least in the real world, where neither tenants nor landlords are angels.
• BobaFloutist 2y ago
  It's funny how that feels wrong for undefined reasons, but it doesn't feel wrong when that happens to apartment buildings, isn't it? We associate houses with property ownership and apartments with renting, even though owning an apartment or renting a house aren't in any way inherently less reasonable.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]