chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 1 week ago
We arent a homogenous group, but ill tell you my personal opinion.
I trust you when you say your aunt is not bad, but what she is doing is bad (and i am sure she is unaware of it). Those 3 to 5 houses she bought are 3 to 5 houses that families cant buy. A few bad side effects:
- It lowers the housing stock in the area, so artifucial scarcity brings the prices up artificially.
- It seperates families from their communities. When your children grow up and have famailies ofbtheir own, they cant afford to stay in the community and are forced to leave
- The families that do stay and are forced to rent arent building any equity for their children. In effect, it stunts upward mobility.
There are people who do want to rent, and people whoneed to rent, but that should happen in priperly dense apartment building designed specifically for that. When houses meant for families are snatched up to profit off of, it is parasitic.
I get it, they are just trying to survive. They are playing the game that exists. Thats why i personally dont belive that most landlords like you are describing are bad people. I think the ultinate issue is that out elected officials do nothing about it. It should be illegal, or have tax implications that discourage the practice.
UmeU@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Who are you to say what people should or shouldn’t rent. Should all renters be piled on top of each other in over packed buildings with 600 square feet to themselves? Why can’t I rent a 2000 square foot town home for my family so that they are safe while I save up to buy my own home?
And say I rent a townhome for 10 years, then buy my own townhome, then 10 years later I rent it out to someone else while I buy something bigger? What’s wrong with that.
I think what we all have a problem with is housing affordability and a lack of systematic focus by the government on eliminating poverty.
The issue isn’t some small time landlord with 5 condos, it’s the investment groups with 5000 condos which artificially juice the rents year after year.
It’s insulting to say that all of the poor people who cannot afford to buy a home should have to live in densely packed buildings.
AngryMob@lemmy.one 1 week ago
Rent for single family properties is higher than the mortgage of that same property. In theory. So ideally no single family property should be rented as its purely a parasite relationship. Again, in theory.
The problem is that isn’t always true in practice with today’s market and rules. because if the previous owner has had their mortgage long enough, then it could be quite a lot less than a new mortgage. That makes a situation where rent is higher than their old mortgage (providing landlord profit), but cheaper than a new mortgage (providing a valid choice to a renter).
But many of us argue that the current situation is unnecessary and drives up overall market costs. Even when done by just small landlords, it all adds up because the system allows it to.
UmeU@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The problem with this theory is that it’s wrong across the board.
Take a look at houses on realtor dot com or the like… they show estimated mortgage and also estimated rental value. Single family homes typically rent for far less than a new mortgage on the same property, partly because housing prices are so inflated and partly because as you pointed out, someone who got a mortgage on a property 10 years ago who is renting it out now may be renting it out based on the cost of ownership 10 years ago.
Secondly, your conclusion doesn’t follow even if your premise was correct.
Let’s pretend sfh rental prices were higher than the cost of a new mortgage on the same property. How would that then translate to ‘people who can only afford to rent shouldn’t be allowed the dignity of living in a sfh and instead should have no other option but to live in a shared housing environment… how does that follow? How could you possibly think the answer is an increased limitation on what people can rent?
The real solution is getting rid of corporate ownership of more than say maybe 20 properties at a time.
I would certainly prefer having hundreds of thousands of small time landlords with 5 or 10 properties, as opposed to dozens of billionaire corporation who each own tens of thousands of properties… be they sfh or condos or whatever is irrelevant.
AngryMob@lemmy.one 1 week ago
Its wrong in the current market, yep. But if we didnt have inflated housing from various factors including parasites and empty housing from those billionaire corps and small time landlords, things would be generally more affordable across the board like they were in the past.
With the bar for ownership lower, that rental line shifts too. And suddenly the concept of “starter homes” is back on the menu like it was only a few years ago. And maybe we could get some smaller homes being built again to meet that demand.
Last thing i wanna say is that specific rental options don’t have to be shitty. I was lucky to have snuck my early adulthood right into this mess as it formed. I saved up for my starter house (which i am now stuck in seemingly forever due to this market, but i know i am also lucky) by renting, but i rented an 1000 sqft private entry apartment with good quality. I felt plenty dignified in there. And there are options even better of course. Some people only want to rent forever afterall. Townhomes in particular are more suited for that style of renting. Nothing against that. But also, sardine packed buildings have their place. If someone is that rough off, i’d assume they prefer that to being on the streets. The issue is even those buildings have been royally fucked by today’s market. Those 500sqft apartments shouldn’t cost more than my current mortgage, but they do, and that’s insanity.
chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I dont think the apartments should be small, ive lived in apartments for most of my life. Msxing out square footage is also a shitty developer tactic, but thats another story