3 ms·
What an utterly hostile and naive view. We need rental buildings and thus we need landlords. There are many many scenarios where one may want to rent instead of
by tensor 2y ago
What an utterly hostile and naive view. We need rental buildings and thus we need landlords. There are many many scenarios where one may want to rent instead of buy. You need a place only for a few years, you need a place while you explore to decide where to buy, you don't have the money to buy yet, etc.
If your next suggestion is that all landlords be government run or run as a coop, no freaking thanks to the first and while coops are great I don't think only coops is a good solution. If you want only wealthy homeowners and the rest of the population living in communism style housing, very hard disagree.
- ltbarcly3 2y agoNo, I'm fine with landlords until they capture regulators and legislators and turn economic competition into stagnation for profit.
- ltbarcly3 2y agoYou also don't know anything about co-ops. Frankly I think you are completely uneducated on any of this stuff. Go look up GHI in Greenbelt, Maryland. It's one of the oldest and largest co-ops in the USA. Housing in GHI is a fraction of the cost of the surrounding neighborhood, and the cause is that you cannot rent out GHI units. Only owners can live in their own units, which means speculators and landlords are simply banned from bidding up the costs. As a result, the cost to buy a unit there is a fraction of what it is right next door, maintenance on the units is better, crime is lower, services are better. It's a 100% walk able community that is run democratically. It's really a model for how housing could be built all across the country, but I guess you are the expert, we should keep doing what we do now and just let a couple billionaires complete a monopoly on having a roof, and hope that they only ask for 100% of our income and not more.