As a current landlord about to extend a lease at exactly the same terms for 3rd year in a row (and I fix everything within 24 hours) - I agree with this too.
It’s ridiculous that my largest store of value is a speculation bubble and a piece of paper with my name on it
Will be in your situation in due time.
Inheritance will give my siblings and I property.
My siblings and I have already talked about it. We’re looking to see if we can transfer it to Community Land Trusts or sell.
Here’s a link to the Canada wide association: https://www.communityland.ca/
Here’s the one specific to Ottawa: https://www.oclt.ca/
There are others in other cities.
Some (like Ottawa) don’t take individual units yet but we’ll prob sell and then invest in them or if they choose to buy individual units, sell to them.
If you can find one. Sell to a community land trust or housing co-op. You can get your capital back and the people living there can manage and own their own homes.
You can then reinvest the capital into other projects: https://tapestrycapital.ca/
Or in renewable energy: https://www.orec.ca/
Or credit union class B shares.
They try to aim for 4-5% ROI so above inflation. Unfortunately, most people want the ubsustainable returns in real estate.
Ooo! Those are good alternatives. I’ll give em a read through. It might solve something on my end.
Say I want to move cities for a new job. There are at least two uncertainties I need to resolve -
- will this job work out for the long term?
- will I like this city at all (or know where to buy)?
This prevents me from wanting to buy immediately.
What prevents me from selling immediately is losing a stable footing I can plan around if the new city doesn’t work out. More broadly for everyone in this situation though is the cash sits.
I will need to buy immediately or park it in some investment that keeps pace/liquid enough to convert back to a house, which requires additional knowledge/research.
So to be risk averse, sitting on the house is generally a safe default…
But thank you for starting me on considering this as an options and what parameters need to be met to make sense.
Glad to help.
For now. I’d at least put it in your will and talk to the beneficiaries of your estate about it.
I have family members who are more into the whole Real Estate “game” and would rather the property. Putting it in your will prevent any shenanigans.
The whole “society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never know” and all that.
You’re right about moving cities part of it. Ideally if there are enough community land trusts and housing cooperatives you won’t face such issues as the distinction between “renting” and “owning” will disappear. And your investments will be divorced from land and onto actual projects.
I couldn’t disagree more. All the hatred should be directed at individuals/companies that own a bunch of properties. They are specifically in the business of fucking people.
The thing I hate most is that all of these clowns will tell you you MUST raise rent every year. They also would likely try and murder you if you even got close to forcing them to pay their employees more every year, or even just other people’s employees. Keep in mind, if you own the property, you are making money with equity no matter if you have tenants or not. So all the rent is gravy but they want to squeeze people to death because they legally have to maintain their own rentals, which the cost of upkeep is REALLY far below the rent paid. Again, $0 in rent is STILL making money off the property.
100% as long as you’re talking about paid off property. That doesn’t really exist since every company that makes this their business model is over-leveraged as fuck and landlords with a single property are very likely to still have a mortgage.
One day you’ll learn the difference between hard and liquid assets.
As opposed to the people who merely own one family of serfs?
Wtf are you talking about?
Edit: messed up the formatting.
Does it matter to a family that can only rent if they rent from a corporation vs individual?
Spreading out renters is not a solution.
The following math works if the all landlords own the maximum allowed.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1000, only 1‰ of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 100, only 1% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 10, only 10% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1, only 50% of the population can be landlords.
To go back to the beginning, if there is no maximum, only 1 person (0.0001%) of the population can be a landlord and everyone else is a renter (the whole “you will own nothing and be happy” line).
What percent of the population do you want to permit to be landlords? Mind you, not property managers, specifically landlords.
Remember 100% of the population can be a property manager because everyone can manage their own property. But the largest percentage of the population that can be landlords is 50%.
I see that you differentiate from people who happen to have extra space and want to rent it out, that I can understand. But also understand that someone can buy 1 home specifically to fuck over other people.
The problem is that some people want to own other people’s homes. Some people want to own 1000 people’s homes and others just 1 is enough. In either case it is not the number that is the problem but the desire to own other people’s homes for the sole purpose of rent seeking that is the problem.
That is what is meant by the comment about “merely own one family of serfs” is about.
Why make an allowance for property managers? Seems like they see a group of people being exploited, and want to find a way to take a cut of that exploitation.
Good question. I understand where you’re coming from with that statement. I have seen ads such as: (https://bsky.app/profile/derek.bike/post/3kkwecolbwk23) and very much share your sentiment.
Short answer: The Division of Labour
Long answer (sorry in advance):
I work in tech, I can choose to work in tech all day because I am the most productive in it. Then I can hire a chef that cooks for me, a maid to clean, a gardener to garden, etc and a manager that manages the home. Each cook, maid, gardener, and manager can in turn have multiple clients. And if they work all day in the thing they are most proficient at, they can in turn hire other people to do the stuff they do not do. This style of living is usual in India, Singapore and outside “The West” more generally. You can see here that the property manager is a part of the division of labour and so “competes in the marketplace” with other property managers for that position, the same with me and all the other workers do for our respective roles in the example.
This is peak liberalism/free market dynamics. I don’t think this is sustainable without coersion. But this is what is meant by “social production” by both Smith and Marx.
Furthermore, you can choose not to hire anybody and be your own property manager which is, in my opinion, more sustainable and totally allowed.
The problem with landlords is that if all the land is owned by someone else, you do not have an option of managing your own land without “hiring” anybody else to do it so you are trapped. This also allows landlords to squeeze money out of people. And the biggest issue it allows other people to rule out your own existance. This sentiment is perfectly encapsulated by the following quote:
Land, n. A part of the earth’s surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
- The Devil’s Dictionary https://archive.org/details/devilsdictionar00bier/page/68/
I hope that shows my position on the matter. I would like your take on it. As can be seen in this thread, there are those who do understand the position and instead of engaging with it, just deride it.
Thanks for the discussion. My understanding of the quote that you’ve included is that it is an argument against private ownership of land in general. I think that this notion, also carried to its logical conclusion, can only be sustained with an absolute degree of central planning. That is to say that a central organizing force would be needed to ensure that some percent of land is set aside for growing food for A through G and beyond, as well as land set aside for any other services that used by all parties (hospitals, schools, etc.)
I’m not necessarily trying to argue against this, and think that there may be a need to address scenarios like this relatively soon. Blue Origin has a vision statement that says something like, “hundreds of people living and working in space”. I’ve wondered what property ownership might look like for people living and working in space where “property” is a significantly more constrained resource.
Sorry that I’ve kind of glossed over the role of the property manager a bit to address the latter part of your post. I can understand the difference to an extent, though my experience with property managers is that their objectives are to extract the highest possible amount from the renter (since their income is a percentage of the rent paid), which I see as a little different from a cook, maid, or gardener. Competition in the market place for a property manager also seems that it may favor the property manager that can maximize the income to the landlord.
None of the shit your said counters my original point. Individual renters with a single rental property inherently care about it and it will almost never be their only income. They’re not doing it to squeeze the most money out of it. Most just need rent to cover their own expenses.
Previous comment is still utter fucking nonsense.
You were given a great answer but to put it even more bluntly, just because someone owns one slave it doesn’t make it any better than someone owning a whole plantation of slaves. It’s horrible either way, I don’t care if you have more time to take better care of your slave because it’s your only one; you still own a fucking slave
It wasn’t a great answer. It was incredibly banal and doesn’t take reality into consideration. This idiotic logic can be applied to anything. It doesn’t make any more sense just because you repeat it.
We live in a capitalist country. We’re all slaves by this primitive thinking. You can shift the blame endlessly.
A properly maintained rental that is fairly priced is not unfair to anyone.
Chris? Lol
Sell your house and stop participating if you’re concerned about it
This advice is indistinguishable from unsolicited mail wanting to buy houses in cash at above market rate… Presumably so Blackrock can jack it up, restrict supply, and charge way more while doing way less.
Which is exactly what OP post is trying to fix.
I’m not a hero, but I’m doing what’s fair given the system we have. Even I’m saying this is fucked, but it’s the best I can do to affect things for the better.
Ban corporations from owning residential properties. Houses shouldn’t be held like stocks or cryptocurrency. Only allow individuals to own a maximum of two residential properties, which must be occupied by the owner at least 5 months out of the year or be surrendered to the government, to be sold to an individual who will live in the house.
In the Netherlands we have wooncorporatie, which are non-profit home rental companies. I think it’s a reasonable model, although the center right government tried to get rid of them for years. (Now we have a coalition of far-right parties in power, and they don’t even have anything like a consistent ideology much less policy so who can know what the future brings?)
The current federal government? This is about the United States Federal Government?
LOL, nope don’t trust them.
They’ll seize the houses of “smaller” landlords and give them to the 1% rich landlords, and their houses would be exempt from the regulations. Then they will raise the rent even more, and this time, they will actually have good lawyers, and the tenants will lose every time.
The government needs to be fixed before we can even attempt to fix other issues.
This government would seize housing, then deny access to people of color, LGBT people, people with disabilities (yes the ADA exist, but fascists ignore laws), probably anyone who ever voted registered as a democrat, and anyone else critical of the regime.
This would have to be done at the state level anyway since they enforce most of the real estate laws.
I am a former landlord and I approve of this message. We are back in the house we rented out for 22 years after we moved across the country to a better job, in a place we didn’t care for. We kept our house here so we could come back. We rented it out for 22 years at 30% or even less than market rate ($1600 a month in 2022 for a 3 bed two bath house near LA and a 10 m walk from the train) and we endured crooked and incompetent property managers, failed appliances and tenants who didn’t pay rent. One became a bank robber after we evicted them for not paying rent. They could have started robbing banks earlier I guess so they could at least pay the rent. Anyway, it worked out very well for us. We are back in our house where we like to live. People and companies who buy a bunch of houses and don’t rent them out to give people places to live shouldn’t be able to profit from doing that.
Anyway, it worked out very well for us
This proves the point. This is the kind of story that should end “so, in the end we ended up losing money on the place”. But, if an absent landlord can hire crooked and incompetent property managers, deal with deadbeat tenants, and still have it work out very well for them then it’s an investment where you really can’t lose.
I’m sure you’re lovely people. I don’t mean to criticize you in particular, just the game.
Had we sold our house when we took that job back east we would never have been able to come back here on what we could have saved from what a working person makes. So like I said, it worked out for us.
I don’t know why you’re getting disliked, it’s straight facts. And you weren’t even mean!
I only see one downvote, but thanks for saying that.
Just apply a 300% tax on empty property. Empty houses don’t contribute to the local economy by using local businesses.
How would this help house homeless people?
Prices are artificially inflated due to reduced supply. Increased supply should lower cost * making homes more affordable.
- Absent other fuckery
People using homes as an asset (the same way they buy stocks/etc) would panic realizing that their golden goose is suddenly draining their bank account. They’d either offer rental prices dirt cheap, or give up and sell the property at whatever price people can afford (eg, 10% of what they currently charge).
There are currently MANY empty properties so this could have a larger effect than we often realize. Currently some cities try this the inverse way by giving tax credit to residents.
I’d hope that it would encourage renting the unit even at a discount to avoid the fine.
Which would in turn lower rents by the surge of units on the market for rent.
It’s a compromise, from the before times when one could assume people elected to their public positions where attempting to do those jobs in good faith.
The idea would be to give everyone something they want so that everyone could agree and actually get something done.
In this case, the house hoarders don’t immediately lose the resources they’ve hoarded, and instead get charged for the damage they’re doing to the economy. Ideally that money goes towards housing the poor, but that’s a side effect.
The point would be to make house hoarding non-viable as an income source, incentivising the hoarders to un-hoard.
Sadly, it wouldn’t do either without a much higher tax, which would never get agreed to
Nowadays it’s just a pipe dream that the money’d power wants to compromise on anything.
The Welsh (or some Welsh councils?) have already done it. Although the problem there is more with holiday homes people buy and leave empty most of the year. It’s fun to read people complaining that they have to sell it. Yes, that is the point.
There are literally amendments to the Constitution preventing this from happening have you all lost your mind!
Why do we have to pretend the constitution matters when our enemies don’t?
Ummm… Because our enemies don’t… 🤷
They’re just kids living out a simplistic power fantasy. “If I were king of the world, I’d solve this huge, intractable problem with a simple order”. Like Mao ordering all the sparrows to be killed. Hopefully, once they experience the world a little, they realize that big problems are big because they’re difficult and complicated to solve.
Housing is more complex and the proposed solution may not work, but there are some problems that could be solved by someone with absolute power pretty easily. For example, if we shipped health insurance CEOs off to El Salvadorian labor camps instead of innocent immigrants, people would stop having their claims denied and the concept of a deductible would go the way of the dodo.
facepalm
Housing the homeless is a good idea, but doing it in a random, hap-hazard way is dangerous.
Govt takes over a block of brownstones, and throws a bunch of random people off the street with abuse/violence/psychological issues in them as fast as possible for six months, it’s a recipe for disaster.
You have to be careful about housing people as a government, you become (at least partially) responsible for their actions. Somebody starts cooking meth on an end unit and all of a sudden you have a fire that kills 30 people.
When the govt plans housing they can take flammability, safety, and location into consideration. If you’re just buying up slums to rehab, most of that goes out the window.
They need to invest in group homes for the people you are describing. One well paid housekeeper oversees 5-10 mixable homeless people. By mixable I mean not mixing those with mental issues in with drug users, etc. This is now impossible to hope for in the US with the horrifically cruel “religious conservative” party in control.
Hey, I just rented my property for exactly what the council rates and body corporate expenses are. A $160 pw home. Not even a mark up to cover repairs etc, because capital gain will more than cover that. I did it because I hate what is happening in housing currently, especially for young buyers. Now my new tenant wants to delay moving in for 3 weeks, and not pay any rent during that time. /sigh…what scum I am…
Do you think you provide housing? Here’s a list of common signs:
If someone stole all your tools, you’d kill them, and you don’t think that’s weird.
Unhealthy relationship with caffeine (bonus points for other substances too)
At least one fucked-up bone or joint
There’s some Liquid Nails or silicone caulk stuck in your favorite work shirt
Your hearing isn’t as good as it used to be
Regular porta-shitter use
If two or more of these fit your lifestyle, you may be a provider of housing.
Meh, they would redefine vacant and claim “their” property isn’t affected by the law.
Right and that is also a solvable problem.
Based on what evidence do you think that laws apply to people with money. Laws were made to protect commerce, and by extension, those with the money. There will always be a loophole for them.
Canada instantly bursting in flames
why do you hate me so?
try 100%. housing should be covered by taxes.
People have vacant home??? Where?
There are 15 million vacant in the US: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
…since gross vacancy rate is a measure of all vacant properties — including vacation properties — states with several popular tourist destinations, like Florida and Hawaii, will always register slightly higher rates. The Census Bureau notes that the largest category of vacant housing in the United States is classified as “seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.” In over one-fifth of US counties, these seasonal units made up at least 50% of the vacant housing stock.
Is the movement now to ban vacation homes?
Also note that California, with the worst housing crisis, has one of the lowest vacancy rates, while Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii have among the highest rates. There’s not a housing shortage on average, there’s a housing shortage in the places people want to live - which largely means the places where they can get jobs.
I don’t think vacation homes should be banned, just heavily taxed. I realize that not everybody who owns a vacation home is a multi-millionaire. Some people have a crappy place that’s been in the family for generations. But, they’re still doing much, much better than the people who own 0 homes.
It should also be noted one of the reasons California has such a bad housing problem is other states shipping their own homeless there.
Wtf. That is crazy. what are they waiting for?
It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal. But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state.
(…)
Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before. In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for.
