LogFAQs > #950662744

scar the 1 posted...

If the landlord was also the builder, then of course they should be compensated for their labor. No one is arguing otherwise. The issue is that landlords don't provide a service - they charge money for owning something. As such they are leeches.
Similarly, a landlord who is performing custodial duties should be paid for the service they provide. Owning something is not providing a service. Demanding payment because you own control means of shelter (a basic human right) is exploitative.

OK, so lets say we give housing to individuals for free.

first, from where? The government? No thanks.
they have no incentive to keep up with the property and the amount theyd have to maintain. States like NY can barely run their cities. Forget about housing - and whatever public housing they do create good luck getting into.

second, ok the government steps in and gives you housing. What of utilities? Gas, water, electric? The house is one piece of the puzzle, what about the things needed to make it a hospitable environment? Government again? Now you have to contract out to utility companies.

third, maintenance. The government would have to give contracts out to contractors for repairs. And guess what? Those contracts will be bloated bureaucratic messes. Ive been/worked in NYC public housing and its absolutely filthy and decrepit. And all the residents say they have to wait on repairmen because the supervisor in charge of maintenance has to get approval first.

giving everyone housing for free sounds great, then you actually break down everything else that goes along with it.

one thing Ill say is that slumlords need to be held to the highest degree of law for being pieces of shit. Good landlords exist.

---

https://imgur.com/Rqk1DYV - Super Bowl XXI/XXV/XLII/XLVI Champions - NY Giants
Eli Manning SB tracker: 2/2 Superbowls 2/2 SBMVP's