2 ms·
And this is why I don't touch the real estate market. Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they
by kmeisthax 2y ago
And this is why I don't touch the real estate market. Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they screw over you. There's no fair exchange of value, there's just the scalper (e.g. Blackrock) who bought all the Pokemon cards^W^Whousing units and thus controls the supply, versus the tenant who wants to kick them in the shins.
Personally, I don't think any of the "tenants rights" laws are actually fit for purpose. That is, they're designed to bribe the peasants into accepting their landlords. My ideal would be cities with complete bans on housing rental - i.e. a 100% owner-occupancy mandate - along with "HOUSING PRINTER GO BRRRR" strategies to completely obviate most demand for renting housing units.
- renewiltord 2y agoInstitutions only own some half a million single family homes. Blackstone only owns some 300k units in total. The supply is constrained by locals who want to "preserve community character" and environmentalists who want to "prevent gentrification" and "preserve views".
- happyopossum 2y ago> Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they screw over you. Hasn’t been my experience on either end of the relationship.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rcxdude 2y agoThere are reasons for rental apart from "can't afford to buy". If you don't want to/can't commit to staying in one place for >5 years then rental is often a better option from sheer practicality. And if house prices aren't going through the roof because there's adequate supply, it's not necessarily a better financial option either. (basically, renting isn't the problem, lack of supply of housing is, and abusive rental markets are a symptom)