• Dyskolos
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I said it once, I’ll say it again:

    Residentjal property shouldn’t be allowed to be an investment. Or heavily taxed to make it unprofitable unless you live there yourself.

    “Flow will operate multi-family residential properties that aim to foster a feeling of ownership and community”

    How cynical…

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No single word in the English vocabulary grates against me more than when I hear owners of residential property refer to it as “units”.

      It’s so dehumanizing. Rather, it’s monetizing humanity.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aye. This one hits nicely. Even though it wasn’t the topic at all.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every room a dlc. They’ll never repair the broken shit. Prices go uo regularly. On your windows are ads. And they’ll ring your doorbell every hour to ask money or cookies. Sounds about right 😁

    • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with the spirit of your comment, and I would only add that the practical implementation may need to allow for some leniency.

      For instance, you shouldn’t be forced to sell and buy elsewhere if your life circumstances change temporarily. The law in general could allow for renting somewhere and renting out elsewhere. But I would be onboard with the overall intent of such regulation.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah sure. My statement is an oversimplified summary. You’re totally tight.

      • BeefPiano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have like 10 empty houses for every person experiencing homelessness. How many more do we need to build?

        • Dyskolos
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          With “we” you surely mean the USA.

          Where I live, we don’t. Way too few homes. Especially for the financially challenged. The state fails hard to build as much as he promised to do. So with rising scarcity, prices go brrrrrrrrrrr.

          • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s plenty of room even in places like Venezia (source: I was living there). Problem is they are mostly empty because the rich oligarchs bought as an investment and keeps them there empty. This is also compounded by the scourge that is Airbnb that is pricing out everyone.

            • Dyskolos
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Crap yeah, I can totally imagine in Venezia. At least we have laws here against empty residential buildings bought as an investment. It’s a start hm?

              Oh yes airbnb in cities like that are surely like cancer. Why rent to one person for 500 when i can rent it to 10 for 200 each.

          • BeefPiano@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh neat, just like my house! Maybe I’ll get a neighbor and then there will be 2 people in the US who don’t live on the coast!

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Residentjal property shouldn’t be allowed to be an investment. Or heavily taxed to make it unprofitable unless you live there yourself.

      Why would anyone build new apartment buildings if that were the law? We desperately need to be building more housing, and denser housing.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There also is a thing called public property. Some time ago our government build and owned buildings. Everyone had a cheap home. The moment you privatize a thing you become an investment.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          So everyone needs to be able to spend the upfront capital to buy a home? What about people who want to rent? There are lots of advantages to not buying.

          • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            The advantages you mention are a result of inflated values. Your parents generations could much more easily buy a property and decide to sell it within a few years to move somewhere else.

            • Uranium3006@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              back when I was growing up (I’m under 30) a normal middle class family could own a whole ass house with more rooms than people. today’s housing market is not normal

          • Neato@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Loans exist. And reduce the upfront cost in paperwork to buying a house. It shouldn’t cost nearly 5 figures just to get documents signed.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              So instead of paying rent, you pay loan payments. And the bank can seize your property if you can’t pay. Sounds like six of one and a half-dozen of the other.

              • halowpeano@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re still thinking within the current broken system. The only reason the bank can seize everything unfairly no matter how much had been repaid is because the laws allow it.

                • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Even if you ignore foreclosure, mortgaging still is often more expensive than renting on average in the short term. Because part of what you’re paying for in a mortgage is the fact that it has a finite length.

              • Blackout@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Rent keeps going up, my mortgage is the same regardless of that and I purchased based on what I could afford at that time.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My mortgage is gone because I paid it off. Which is an option, but not for renters who have to pay forever (and in many cases, increasing rates) just to keep hold of the same 1000 SQ ft place.

              • Neato@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mortgage payments build equity and when you move you can sell the property and recoup nearly all of that. Rent is gone.

                Foreclosure is a huge issue that needs to be addressed in legislation. All that equity should still exist for the homeowner even if they stop being able to afford payments.