• pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Most cities are regulated to prevent more housing being built. You should definitely read on the works of Strong Towns, and similar groups, and how you can help change the landscape of your city

      Their website is great and has a ton of details https://www.strongtowns.org/

      • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        You’re wrong, building more housing is THE solution. The vast majority of homes are owned by people who live in them, not landlords. Building more housing is literally the ONLY solution.

        • ADTJ@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          That entirely depends on where you live.

          Your statement that the vast majority of homes are owned by the residents is not true where I live.

          Blanket policies don’t work, governments need to implement regulation that recognises the nuance of different markets.

          But also yes, build more homes too

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not necessarily true. There are powerful cultural forces at play that they’re not willing to acknowledge, yet alone overcome.

      We’re kind of in the same boat. We think that if we have more, then we deserve more before those who have less. That’s just what these people are doing, only they’re doing it way better than us.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      no, and they’re eager to, but I think if they ever tried to not, things would go badly. that’s bad for the market and drives down everyone elses profits. there would be a lot of solidarity against them by the class of people that own the police.

      • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        “Everyone elses profits” means other landlords and property owners, not people who plan on living in their home.

        Why does being a landlord need to be profitable? Why does being privlaged enough to own a human right come with the right to free money?

        • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          because capitalism needs to function like cancer. shit’s built on old imperialist logics, where you must always be claiming more. red queen’s race bullshit. or cancer; pick your metaphor.

          it must be profitable because while productivity increases, due to imperial conquest and advancing technology, the profits of the owning classes (remember; this is the literal definition of capitalism-value being produced by owners rather than workers. yes it’s insane, they are insane, this system is insane.) must also increase.

          the fact the working class have no more to squeeze from just means we get closer and closer to slaves, which is maybe intentional, maybe just a cool bonus for them.

          there’s a cool poem that explains it. check out part 2 https://poets.org/poem/howl-parts-i-ii

        • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          uh huh. I think the value of stuff should go to the people who made it, who can, individually or as (a) group(s) maintain their own fucking tools. or towards a broader project of building a society. I don’t think concentrating wealth or some edgelord bullshit about greed being good are sustainable healthy or sane ways to structure distribution of resources in a society.

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The core problem is consumerism. The idea that if you have more, then you should get more and spend more while complaining you don’t have enough.

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    “It’s the market” is another way of saying “because I can”.

    They don’t have to raise the rent to match the market, the market is simply a signal to them that if they lost you by raising the rent, they could potentially replace you for the same or higher rent.

    They could ignore that and leave your rent alone. They don’t. It’s a choice.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    3 days ago

    Have you ever, in your life, received a rent decrease because they were matching the economic conditions…?

    • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      The only reason rent would decrease in response to economic conditions would be if they started building tons and tons of houses and supply began to outpace demand. OR, your country were experiencing deflation, which is bad

    • The only way I got that to happen is by putting in my two-month notice and then signing up for the exact same unit when they listed it. Didn’t even have to moveout and they ended up charging us the lower rate for the two weeks between our current lease ending and the new one starting.

      • marron12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        Were you pretty sure the price would go down, or did you just roll the dice? I’ve watched prices at the places I’ve lived, and they only ever seem to go up. As in, I’m paying $1600, about to get raised to $1800, and the unit next door is listed for $1900. But one place used RealPage, and I would bet the other one used something like that too.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Housing price didn’t ever go down in most cases because of hoarding, there’s no way leeches will ever decrease the rent.

      • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        No, it’s because of a lack of new supply. Most houses are owned by the people who live in them, not land lords

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      They could also tie it to occupancy. If a functional residence goes more than half the year without someone living in it, property tax is quintupled.

      There’s danger to writing such a law correctly, unfortunately. I recall something in Ecuador where people were leaving extensions to their home just barely unfinished so that they could avoid certain residence laws until they had a buyer.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      And companies own, or even better that better have some good reasoning for buying a property that’s for living.

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        With an exemption for the first 5 years after building. Companies and investors need to be incentivised to build property not hold onto it.

        • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          The incentive to build new housing is to then turn around and sell that housing, they don’t need an incentive, they need permission.

  • terraborra@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 days ago

    Look, what I’d say to you is, that we are laser focussed on delivering outcomes that synergise with our plan to get on with undoing the housing crisis the Labour created.