Comment on When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?

• Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The community should have ownership of whatever rentals are necessary and it should be not for profit.

  source

  • enbyecho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    How is “the community” defined and how is this ownership managed?

    source

    • GuyFleegman@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Public housing is not a novel concept.

      source

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No sheet.

        Ok, so you want all housing to be publicly owned? That would be interesting…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Lemming421@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yes. The ability to have a place to live should be a basic human right and therefore be affordable.

  If that means the government* subsidises it for the low income families (as in owns them and rents them at below market value), so be it.

  We used to have “council houses” in the UK for exactly this purpose, but in the 70s, Thatcher came up with a “right to buy” (at a decent discount) and then made two mistakes - there were no restrictions after buying to stop you selling to anyone else, and there was no building of replacement stock after they were sold. So the result 50 years later is that there are nowhere near enough council houses any more, and a lot of the old ones are privately owned and being rented out at market rates, which are (depending on the area) very expensive.

  *local or national, I don’t really care which

  source

  • m4xie@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Those definitely weren’t mistakes.

    source

    • Lemming421@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Hah. I meant socially, not that it happened by accident!

      source

      • m4xie@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I know, lol

        source
  • Don_alForno@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If that means the government* subsidises it for the low income families (as in owns them and rents them at below market value), so be it.

    Not everybody who doesn’t want to buy is low income. I’m too lazy / risk averse to maintain everything myself, so I happily pay my landlord a reasonable premium to bear the risk of shit burning down (or breaking in less dramatic ways) for me. I also like that I would be able to pack up and move without worrying about selling my old place. I might change my mind later on, but right now I’m good.

    Why should governments subsidize the lifestyle choice I’m consciously making?

    source

    • Lemming421@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      To be clear, I wasn’t trying to say ALL rental housing should be subsidised, just that there should be a healthy supply available for local councils to make available to people who need it based on whatever criteria they set for that.

      Even when I was renting, I’d earn too much to qualify. People with young children would take priory over single people. That sort of thing.

      It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than companies gaming the system to maximise profits at the expense of the most vulnerable.

      source
• porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yes, that’s ideal. In Germany (where there is a culture much more oriented towards renting than owning) there are a lot of state run landlords and they are great to rent from, reasonable rents, reasonable to deal with (in the local context), etc. And of course they have good laws to protect tenants to back it up. Not necessarily a perfect system but definitely one the rest of the world can learn from. Unfortunately things are still heading in the wrong direction there too right now.

  source

  • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That’s not true in any big city. While the laws keep the landlord madness limited, real estate and rent prices are out of control because of speculation, and there are tons of horror stories to go around - and by experience, I would say they are even more common with individual landlords than with large companies, at least large companies don’t usually do anything obviously illegal and have less venues to make their tenants homeless.

    source

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yes, I’m talking about the state owned companies versus both private companies and individual landlords, rents with the state owned ones are like 20% or more lower than the others and they are usually more responsive to fixing problems, don’t play too many games

      source
• dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yes.

  source
• someguy3@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  For houses? Essentially no one, houses should not be for rent. Apartments in my mind are fine to rent because you can build a fuckton of apartments on a small amount of land.

  source