Current Events > If landlords are so evil, where shoul people live?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Should the government own all our homes?

---

Everybody should just crash at their buddy Joe's place.

---

Under bridges

---

I've rented 4 different places. Never had a bad experience with the landlord. They can't all be evil.
---

We can crawl up our own asses

---

most people on here hate billionaires, trump and landlords

Nobody has a good alternative because one doesn't exist, and every attempt at one has led to disaster (AKA the projects)

---

Not all landlords are evil.

They leave that to HOAs

---

In a van down by the river

---

Our landlord is kind of a slumlord but he's a pretty cool slumlord.

---

Some real "and yet you participate in society" vibes here
---

s0nicfan posted...

Nobody has a good alternative because one doesn't exist

you are allowed to own your own home. Then one day you might have your martgage paid off and you wont have that monthly payment. Then another day after that you'll pass away and you can leave that property to your kids... and it will probably have increased in value.

s0nicfan posted...

Nobody has a good alternative because one doesn't exist, and every attempt at one has led to disaster (AKA the projects)

Maybe the projects were so bad, not because they were owned by someone other than private landlords but because they were the dumping ground for the people most affected by intentional segregation and economic warfare, compounded by concentrated poverty and both over and under policing?

---

The cost of housing would be more affordable to own because not as many people would be trying to buy them. But then also the price would go up because so many people are able to buy them. Then they would go back down because no one could afford them. Then they'd go back up because no one would build them. Then they'd go back down because house makers gotta make some money. But then housing would go back up because of something else.

So, it's complicated and tbh no one knows wtf it would do if landlords weren't a thing.

---

legendary_zell posted...

Maybe the projects were so bad, not because they were owned by someone other than private landlords but because they were the dumping ground for the people most affected by intentional segregation and economic warfare, compounded by concentrated poverty and both over and under policing?

So what's your grand solution?

---

Antifar posted...

Some real "and yet you participate in society" vibes here

Do you have a solution?
A comment like this doesn't do much, if you don't.

---

*insert violent revolution here*

I mean, that's what we're all really dancing around here.

---

pupeye posted...

Then another day after that you'll pass away and you can leave that property to your kids... and it will probably have increased in value.

I'm going to make all our kids/grandkids think we're leaving them all kinds of riches but when they go to the lawyer after we die and they open the safe it'll just be full of 50 years worth of my wife and I's homemade pornos

---

LordRazziel posted...

Do you have a solution?

s0nicfan posted...

So what's your grand solution?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

What does that pic mean?

So, there isn't a solution? Let's just keep with the system of landlords and tenants and call the landlords scum and evil? What good comes of that?

---

s0nicfan posted...

So what's your grand solution?

s0nicfan posted...

So what's your grand solution?

More community based affordable housing that's not focused on turning a profit, but instead on being sustainable and sturdy. It won't turn to shit if we don't allow poverty and racism and stigma to concentrate there and actually connect it to surrounding areas rather than cutting it off. Social housing is possible. That's not to say to abolish private housing tomorrow but it's not the only way to order a society.

---

EDIT: the below is addressed at Broseph

If you actually want to discuss the merits of what is effective the complete end to land ownership as a concept you gotta at least post an argument and not just a meme. It resolves the issue of speculative land value, but does nothing to address the base cost associated with actually building and the fact that apartments as a concept were born from the idea that the only way to offset what would otherwise be a loss is through volume. It also doesn't touch on what happens if/when renting goes away and suddenly people need to fix their own shit or risk the property becoming unlivable because landlords are currently responsible for maintenance but homeowners are on their own.

---

legendary_zell posted...

More community based affordable housing that's not focused on turning a profit, but instead on being sustainable and sturdy. It won't turn to shit if we don't allow poverty and racism and stigma to concentrate there and actually connect it to surrounding areas rather than cutting it off. Social housing is possible. That's not to say to abolish private housing tomorrow but it's not the only way to order a society.

What does that actually mean? Explain what "community-based" means in this context. Who's going to build it? Why would they build it if they aren't going to profit from it. Who's going to maintain it? How are you going to avoid poverty concentrating in these locations if they're the cheapest possible option? What's your evidence that it's racism that made poor people trash their places in the projects?

---

legendary_zell posted...

More community based affordable housing that's not focused on turning a profit, but instead on being sustainable and sturdy. It won't turn to shit if we don't allow poverty and racism and stigma to concentrate there and actually connect it to surrounding areas rather than cutting it off. Social housing is possible. That's not to say to abolish private housing tomorrow but it's not the only way to order a society.

leftists should pool their resources together and make this happen peacefully rather than through the state

---

I think this proposal is pretty well-reasoned.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/04/05/a-plan-to-solve-the-housing-crisis-through-social-housing/
Public housing has a stigma in the US, but that's a byproduct of how we've handled and managed public housing, not inherent to the idea.
---

The real issue here isn't the landlords, but why people aren't able to afford their own place to begin with.

1. People are too congregated around the cities so demand far exceed supply.
2. Some people just flat out don't make enough money.
3. The other people who do make enough money are dumb as shit with it.

---

Antifar posted...

I think this proposal is pretty well-reasoned.

Wow how convenient that government-owned property is the solution to a government created housing shortage

s0nicfan posted...

you gotta at least post an argument and not just a meme.

no

Antifar posted...

I think this proposal is pretty well-reasoned.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/04/05/a-plan-to-solve-the-housing-crisis-through-social-housing/
Public housing has a stigma in the US, but that's a byproduct of how we've handled and managed public housing, not inherent to the idea.

Ignoring the "we've screwed it up every time we tried but THIS TIME we'll manage it right" issue, it doesn't explain how this could possibly be implemented without just turning into another projects. It says the plan would allow the rent prices to allow the building to "break even" rather than turn a profit, but it doesn't explain how to get around the issue that the only way to do that AND make it affordable is by building them in the poorest areas, which will inherently lead to large concentrations of poor renters, which will drive away the middle class renters to other locations.

---

s0nicfan posted...

What does that actually mean? Explain what "community-based" means in this context. Who's going to build it? Why would they build it if they aren't going to profit from it. Who's going to maintain it? How are you going to avoid poverty concentrating in these locations if they're the cheapest possible option? What's your evidence that it's racism that made poor people trash their places in the projects?

You say all this like it hasn't actually been done already in Europe. Community based means it's there to provide housing to people who live in the area, period. Not as a profit center for developers or landlords. It's funded by the community, for the community. Whether from taxes or voluntary agreements (very likely taxes). They are then operated in a democratic manner for the benefit of current and future residents.

It's called social housing and it hasn't turned into slums in the places where marginalized people aren't relegated to them and don't want to be there. You avoid concentration of poverty by making enough that people can universally live there and treating it not as a safety net, but as one of many options for housing. You're make it a smart option.


---

legendary_zell posted...

You say all this like it hasn't actually been done already in Europe.

I'm not sure you want to use public housing in Europe as a successful example.

legendary_zell posted...

Whether from taxes or voluntary agreements (very likely taxes).

I guess far leftists know that it would be a money pit, so they'd rather force other people to pay for it rather than put their own money to work.

---

legendary_zell posted...

More community based affordable housing that's not focused on turning a profit, but instead on being sustainable and sturdy. It won't turn to shit if we don't allow poverty and racism and stigma to concentrate there and actually connect it to surrounding areas rather than cutting it off. Social housing is possible. That's not to say to abolish private housing tomorrow but it's not the only way to order a society.

So how do you do that? Does the government own all the property? How do you put standards in place to ensure landlords aren't profiting? Who will let their property be used, if there isn't an incentive? I'm all for stringent regulations to prevent exploitation. There are many essentials that are best kept socialized, but this is one that seems best kept private

---

At the end of the day, housing is for human beings and human beings need housing. If a profit centered system does not consider it efficient to provide that housing, other methods have to supplement it or supplant it.

I'm not searching out areas where the government should be involved, I'm simply identifying areas where our current system fails. We recognize those failures in fits and starts, a little public schooling here, a little fire department there. All I'm proposing is there's obviously a few more big failures. Housing, healthcare, transportation, and higher education seem to be the big ones.

---

legendary_zell posted...

I'm not searching out areas where the government should be involved, I'm simply identifying areas where our current system fails. We recognize those failures in fits and starts, a little public schooling here, a little fire department there. All I'm proposing is there's obviously a few more big failures. Housing, healthcare, transportation, and higher education seem to be the big ones.

The housing shortage is literally government created. The current system isn't private enterprise, it's local governments outlawing housing.

Reform zoning and tax the land. Easy.

tennisdude818 posted...

I guess far leftists know that it would be a money pit, so they'd rather force other people to pay for it rather than put their own money to work.

People such as yourself are so trained to withhold empathy or look down on others. They assume that the other guy is a freeloader or is morally bankrupt or that they will never need any help. Until it's them that needs it and the infrastructure was never built so they're SOL. Taxes are a workaround for what would otherwise be an even worse collective action problem.

We probably wouldn't have a lot of the great things we have if it had been completely voluntary, that's not exactly a point for you here.


---

Antifar posted...

I think this proposal is pretty well-reasoned.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/04/05/a-plan-to-solve-the-housing-crisis-through-social-housing/
Public housing has a stigma in the US, but that's a byproduct of how we've handled and managed public housing, not inherent to the idea.

This seems like a reasonable solution for big cities, but much of America is too spread out for this.

---

I dont hold the price of my rent (which is WAY too expensive) on my landlord because every similar rental is the same price. Every homeowner here pressures the rental agencies for top dollar and they know people wont spend more than this. Having federal caps on rent would be helpful for sure.

---

Payzmaykr posted...

Having federal caps on rent would be helpful for sure.

Stop.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Stop.

Why? Rent is too expensive.

---

Payzmaykr posted...

Why? Rent is too expensive.

You're arguing for a price control.

Don't.

legendary_zell posted...

Taxes are a workaround for what would otherwise be an even worse collective action problem.

So you can't just do this on a small scale peacefully and prove to the world how great and efficient it is? Sounds like my comment was accurate, it just rubs you the wrong way.

---

LordRazziel posted...

So how do you do that? Does the government own all the property? How do you put standards in place to ensure landlords aren't profiting? Who will let their property be used, if there isn't an incentive? I'm all for stringent regulations to prevent exploitation. There are many essentials that are best kept socialized, but this is one that seems best kept private

They don't have to own all of it, but if the private market won't provide it, they should own enough to 100 percent make up the difference. Landlords won't profit off of what they don't own, so that's not a problem. The government could buy the property or they could build their own, so they won't need to worry about landlord permission.

No one should be out on the street because a business doesn't find it beneficial to rent to them. Whatever level of public investment fixes that is fine. If it can be done with regulation, fine. If it's through building housing, fine.


---

legendary_zell posted...

People such as yourself are so trained to withhold empathy or look down on others. They assume that the other guy is a freeloader or is morally bankrupt or that they will never need any help. Until it's them that needs it and the infrastructure was never built so they're SOL. Taxes are a workaround for what would otherwise be an even worse collective action problem.

We probably wouldn't have a lot of the great things we have if it had been completely voluntary, that's not exactly a point for you here.

Empathy isn't an excuse for poor decision making, though. Being so empathetic over a situation that you create a monstrosity that makes things worse doesn't actually help the people you're feeling for even if you feel good for proposing it. The issue is when people rightfully point out how sloppy proposals are or how awful past attempts were, rather than acknowledge that maybe their proposal is shit and they need to go back to the drawing board, people double down on "oh, you just don't care about these people." It's an extraordinarily complex situation with a lot of moving parts and if there was an easy/good solution it would have been done already. Pretending that the only reason the problem hasn't been solved is malice or sociopathy doesn't fix the problems either.

The projects were first designed and implemented by empathetic people who wanted to help, and it was a total disaster. Your heart is in the right place, so don't get judge-y on people whos heads are as well.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

You're arguing for a price control.

Don't.

There are some circumstances where its actually necessary. There definitely are flaws with our system which give people the freedom to financially stunt an entire generation. Every penny people make goes to rent. Thats great if youre not in that group, but thats the majority of our generation. Cant save to buy because rent is too much.

Caps on medical insurance payments should exist (or otherwise, nobody should be denied for ACA).

---

Payzmaykr posted...

There are some circumstances where its actually necessary.

There are not. Price controls do not lower prices they just create shortages. They have failed every time and every place.

Even Paul Krugman argues against rent control

---

Every economist, left or right, argues against rent control

Landlords creampieing these people left and right. They are saints right now clappin cheeks just to overlook the rent that is due. ;3

---