They won't be sellable... AT A PROFIT. They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.
You get to escape from this exploitation with the ill-gotten rent-profits you've already got and your heads still attached to your bodies... this is already the compromise. Take the win.
They might not be sellable at "break even". A lot of people bought places to short-term rent on places like Airbnb. The prices might be extra inflated because of that revenue generation. Remove the ability to make a profit and the value crashes. Suddenly they cannot sell it for what they owe and it doesn't make enough to cover the mortgage.
My guess is that a lot of these mom and pop landlords will lose or sell their properties and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap.. Never lose faith in the system's incomparable ability to fuck over the common people.
I'm far from being an authority in the matter, and I'm not even from the US, but it's a recurring trend since at least the 80s/90s after a brief attempt at making things a bit better (some of which, to be fair, did persist for some time before being crushed or just withering), so it kind of depends on your age I suppose.
If you're investing to make highly leveraged profit off of a concept in a legal grey area, you're are not some "mom and pop" land lord. If that comes to pass they messed up their risk management because of greed.
NYC already has heavy restrictions on short term rentals like airbnb, enforced since 2023. They need to be registered, there's a 2 guest limit, it must be a shared space (no full unit rentals), the hosts must be present for the full stay, and it's in an approved building.
The fundamental issue is that people and corporations are buying himes for the sole purpose of profiting off them
It'll suck for some people, but it's a necessary part of making housing affordable again. Housing needs to be a place for someone to live, not an investment that always gets more expensive
ya it's crazy how having their mortgage paid for by their tenant is not enough, they also want to sell the property for high price than they "paid" for.
They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.
So, condos? Not inherently bad, but I would expect that to make living in NYC even more impossible except for the already wealthy with enough capital to buy one.
Reminds me of when the former German gov tried to enforce heat pumps for heater replacements to phase out gas heaters.
Someone wrote their experience with a homeowner meeting in a small city to discuss that topic and at some point a man complained that doesn’t know if he could afford to replace gas heaters with heat pumps in all 36 of his houses…
i haven't looked too closely into his history or policy but i can tell he's the real mfing deal based on the fact that the times and post both absolutely hate his guts
I was ALL IN on Mamdani until I read THIS! CANT we just think of the RICH LANDLORDS PLEASE! THOSE are the Only Ones who Matter! I'll GLADLY pay DOUBLE the Rent just to make Sure my Mom And Pop Landlord with 30 Buildings in NYC can stay Afloat and I Expect ALL Mamdani Supporters to do the Same! This is EYE OPENING!
Giving everyone affordable housing would be socialism! Bailing out corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars every decade or so is not socialism, though. That would be straight up communism, but pssst
Communism also means that the big companies get bail money whenever they struggle financially. It doesn't matter if in capitalism the big corporations are billionaire owned. The money they are being bailed out with is tax money of the common people.
If your promary concern when buying a hime is selling it, your housing market is fundamentally broken
Landlords can still make a profit offering a service (rental profit) without needing the underlying asset to perpetually appreciate in value. Japan makes it work
It's funny how the system of owning extra properties to rent out as part of a person's retirement is so unreachable for current generations that they don't even really know about it. Being able to own things so you didn't have to work when you were old used to be how the system convinced people to buy into it.
Now that this is now longer feasible for almost anyone, there's little reason for people to feel the system is worth upholding. That's what kept support for capitalism so strong after guilded age; a middle class supported by generous housing policies and strong unions. As such a reality becomes distant memory, people are more willing to reject capitalism and liberalism than every before.
I kind of have to be in awe of how some of these people will complain that pensions disappeared and retirement is based on gambling, but also vote against their own interests and call us (relatively) younger folks lazy complaining losers that can't afford anything. Hmm...
That's what I'm saying. The petty property owning class has been completely replaced by the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos. They pretend like they're helping the bourgeoisie, but home ownership is already dead.
They are the bourgeoisie. The term basically means you get your income from capital (investments) and not from your labor.
There is the petite bourgeoisie. They're the shop owners and such who tend to still work at those shops alongside their other workers. Historically, they have not been good allies of the working class, though there are a few exceptions.
Are you really an middle class city dweller when you don't interact with cities or society at large at all? I think people with $10B+ in wealth, or people with political ties to Trump would be considered ruling class, not middle class city-dwellers.
"Middle class" does not map to the bourgeoisie. The whole lower/middle/upper class distinction is so poorly defined that you can say literally anyone is middle class. Might be upper middle class or lower middle class, but you're never not middle class. Worker/bourgeoisie/nobility is more specific, and it's a trap to try to see it as directly mapping over.
The term bourgeoisie was a distinction from the nobility who owned the land by right of birth. At the time, there was no other way to own land by purchasing it on the open market. The bourgeoisie emerged with early capitalism, and wanted to own land. The American and French revolutions were largely driven by the bourgeoisie with the help of the workers.
In chapter I of the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie are the heroes. They did break the power of the nobility's stranglehold on land ownership. Right-libertarians sometimes use this fact to say capitalism is great, but this is the wrong way to look at it. Marx and Engles never argued things should stay there just because anyone can theoretically aquire enough wealth to own land.
There are probably landlords who own only 2 properties, and who are living frugally in a smaller one while renting out a bigger one. I doubt there are many, but in a city of 25 million, there are probably a few. But, this idea that a property in NYC will be "unsellable" is a bit absurd.
Hey now there's at least one dude who owns and rents a property but lives out of a van going up and down the east coast. I'm just describing one of my uncles but swap East for West.
Not to validate the moronic narrative in the OP, but a million dollars is really not that much. Not even enough to retire in many places. Not where I'd put the standard for "mom and pop." I mean hell, your average mom and pop anything is probably worth a lot more than one million dollars.
That's true if we evaluate wealth as an absolute number, but then you miss cost of living and purchasing power considerations that make this not as simple as it sounds. For example, the real value of a million dollars will be very different between Switzerland, the US, China, Turkey, Jordan and Nigeria. Hell, even inside the US a million dollars in a wealthy NYC neighborhood is not at all the same as a million dollars in rural Alabama. Where I'm from a decent-sized apartment in a nice location would cost somewhere along the lines of $100k, for example. You can kind of correct for this using purchasing power parity, but even then that's not the whole picture. Having a million dollars of net assets in NYC is definitely privileged, but not global 1% levels of privilege.
It's really easy for individual homeowners to end up with unsellable properties. It happened at a massive scale after the late 2000s housing crash. All that has to happen is that the price declines to the point that your mortgage balance + transaction costs are now worth more than the home's value. If you're in that situation, unless you have the tens of thousands in cash needed to make up the difference, you're trapped in your home. You could mail the bank the keys and default on the mortgage, but that wrecks your credit and the bank will keep tacking on fees, charging you for maintenance, etc. Your choice is either to stay in the home or declare bankruptcy. Selling isn't a choice you actually have.
Mom and Pop NYC landlords. I immediately want to balk at this statement but then I remembered two things. Firstly I remember "How to with Jon Wilson". He made an episode about buying the house from his landlord and that the only way to pay for it was to turn it into a rental property. His landlord was an old lady who wanted to move out.
Secondly, I remember meeting a couple who sold a brownstone before the pandemic, moved to Montclair NJ, and then purchased a home and turned their second floor into an apartment.
Do mom and pop landlords exist? Yes. Are they opportunistic? I don't think those single family homes should be allowed to be turned into apartments. I've seen some pretty heinous abuses of some people essentially turning a closet and a hallway into a "studio".
I'm in here downvoting over semantics, actually unsure if people in the comments are unaware small time rental owners exist?
You can buy a house on a loan and repay it over 15 years. This provides a necessary service to those who rent because: 1) they don't want to be forced into a 15 year liability themselves or 2) they don't qualify for such a loan. A mom and pop landlord exists, and it absolutely is not their primary income.
If you believe housing is a human right then you would be happy about small time landlords making housing more available as opposed to corporate landlords.
88 Comments
mycodesucks@lemmy.world · 251 pts · 358d
Gotta read between the lines.
They won't be sellable... AT A PROFIT. They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.
You get to escape from this exploitation with the ill-gotten rent-profits you've already got and your heads still attached to your bodies... this is already the compromise. Take the win.
BadJojo@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 75 pts · 358d
They might not be sellable at "break even". A lot of people bought places to short-term rent on places like Airbnb. The prices might be extra inflated because of that revenue generation. Remove the ability to make a profit and the value crashes. Suddenly they cannot sell it for what they owe and it doesn't make enough to cover the mortgage.
My guess is that a lot of these mom and pop landlords will lose or sell their properties and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap.. Never lose faith in the system's incomparable ability to fuck over the common people.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 48 pts · 358d
People who wanted to literally abuse the system (and the people in it) will get fucked up by a new system. So sad.
Frozengyro@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 358d
Did you read the whole post? Their point is it could make it even worse in the end.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 358d
Isn't that the point of everything in the US?
Frozengyro@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 358d
Lately it would seem so. And by lately I mean most of my lifetime, so possibly forever. Though I doubt that.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 358d
I'm far from being an authority in the matter, and I'm not even from the US, but it's a recurring trend since at least the 80s/90s after a brief attempt at making things a bit better (some of which, to be fair, did persist for some time before being crushed or just withering), so it kind of depends on your age I suppose.
regdog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 352d
Top comment
Bahnd@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 358d
Investments carry risk, and when you invest in leaches, expect people to have little sympathy when the endevor fails.
mormund@feddit.org · 21 pts · 358d
If you're investing to make highly leveraged profit off of a concept in a legal grey area, you're are not some "mom and pop" land lord. If that comes to pass they messed up their risk management because of greed.
0x0@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 358d
If that happens then it was a badly implemented policy to begin with.
hendu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 357d
NYC already has heavy restrictions on short term rentals like airbnb, enforced since 2023. They need to be registered, there's a 2 guest limit, it must be a shared space (no full unit rentals), the hosts must be present for the full stay, and it's in an approved building.
Local law 18.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 357d
Society is not responsible for insuring someone's investment works out well for them.
Government should not be prevented from removing a thumb from the scale because a handful of people made a 30 year bet on it remaining there.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 357d
Taldan@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 358d
The fundamental issue is that people and corporations are buying himes for the sole purpose of profiting off them
It'll suck for some people, but it's a necessary part of making housing affordable again. Housing needs to be a place for someone to live, not an investment that always gets more expensive
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 357d
Too late
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 357d
ya it's crazy how having their mortgage paid for by their tenant is not enough, they also want to sell the property for high price than they "paid" for.
Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 358d
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 358d
So, condos? Not inherently bad, but I would expect that to make living in NYC even more impossible except for the already wealthy with enough capital to buy one.
germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 124 pts · 358d
Reminds me of when the former German gov tried to enforce heat pumps for heater replacements to phase out gas heaters.
Someone wrote their experience with a homeowner meeting in a small city to discuss that topic and at some point a man complained that doesn’t know if he could afford to replace gas heaters with heat pumps in all 36 of his houses…
spujb@lemmy.cafe · 58 pts · 358d
awww the poor babies
ProvableGecko@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 358d
This would be funny to read in a political satire novel or something if we weren't living in it.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org · 117 pts · 358d
"We invented a relatable class of people to discredit an actually leftish politician"
I feel like this isn't a new trick.
Seleni@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 358d
Yeah, this is just code for ‘hey middle-class people, Mamdani might be coming for you next!’
TomMasz@lemmy.world · 95 pts · 358d
It warms my heart to see all the people scared shitless by this guy.
hypnicjerk@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 358d
i haven't looked too closely into his history or policy but i can tell he's the real mfing deal based on the fact that the times and post both absolutely hate his guts
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 84 pts · 358d
Obviously "unsellable properties" here means "property that won't keep appreciating at insane rates".
BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz · 74 pts · 358d
I was ALL IN on Mamdani until I read THIS! CANT we just think of the RICH LANDLORDS PLEASE! THOSE are the Only Ones who Matter! I'll GLADLY pay DOUBLE the Rent just to make Sure my Mom And Pop Landlord with 30 Buildings in NYC can stay Afloat and I Expect ALL Mamdani Supporters to do the Same! This is EYE OPENING!
foggianism@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 358d
Giving everyone affordable housing would be socialism! Bailing out corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars every decade or so is not socialism, though. That would be straight up communism, but pssst
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 357d
Not really though. Communism means that the workers own the means of production. Bailing out billionaire-owned corporations is not that.
foggianism@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 357d
Communism also means that the big companies get bail money whenever they struggle financially. It doesn't matter if in capitalism the big corporations are billionaire owned. The money they are being bailed out with is tax money of the common people.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 356d
I mean. No. Like.... No.
What?
theangryseal@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 358d
If my landlord has to miss one trip in his giant RV I will just bawl my eyes out.
Poor guy.
bigfondue@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 357d
theangryseal@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 357d
I know. It makes me so sad.
Something I will say about my landlord though, I’ve never seen a harder worker. That dude doesn’t stop.
Still though, he makes money for nothing across the board.
I have paid him for a whole ass house at this point. You know how many times he’s had to work on anything at my place? 0.
Just collect money and throw it in the bank for absolutely nothing.
I’ve actually single handedly paid for half of his one apartment building at this point.
It’s crazy to me that it’s like this.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 357d
Imagine how easily all of this could be fixed if we had affordable public housing that's actually rent to own?
i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 357d
I can't afford my own place, but I'm a temporarily embarrassed landlord! These policies will hurt ME very soon. The gall of this guy.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 70 pts · 358d
And are those mom and pop landlords in the room with us now?
Taldan@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 358d
If your promary concern when buying a hime is selling it, your housing market is fundamentally broken
Landlords can still make a profit offering a service (rental profit) without needing the underlying asset to perpetually appreciate in value. Japan makes it work
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 358d
it's not my primary concern, but it's my third.
Hupf@feddit.org · 4 pts · 357d
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 357d
which one of you said "rent's due"?
Hupf@feddit.org · 2 pts · 357d
Tomorrow's already the Tenth
Ileftreddit@lemmy.world · 55 pts · 357d
rtxn@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 358d
"The feudal overlords are humans just like you and I."
18107@aussie.zone · 48 pts · 357d
If you're renting a property, it is not unsellable. I'm sure someone will be happy to buy it for $1.
Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 358d
"Waaaaa I wanted all the potential profits and none of the risk!"
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 358d
Mom and pop landlord? Is that the US version of a Baronet or Knight?
troybot@midwest.social · 21 pts · 358d
The feudal system is where the term landlord originated, so kind of yeah
Ghyste@sh.itjust.works · 43 pts · 358d
While I get what the writer was trying to say:
A) That was one of the worst terms they could have used.
B) Even small operations are keeping rent high and renters counting pennies.
So fuck em anyway.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 33 pts · 358d
It's funny how the system of owning extra properties to rent out as part of a person's retirement is so unreachable for current generations that they don't even really know about it. Being able to own things so you didn't have to work when you were old used to be how the system convinced people to buy into it.
Now that this is now longer feasible for almost anyone, there's little reason for people to feel the system is worth upholding. That's what kept support for capitalism so strong after guilded age; a middle class supported by generous housing policies and strong unions. As such a reality becomes distant memory, people are more willing to reject capitalism and liberalism than every before.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 357d
i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 357d
I kind of have to be in awe of how some of these people will complain that pensions disappeared and retirement is based on gambling, but also vote against their own interests and call us (relatively) younger folks lazy complaining losers that can't afford anything. Hmm...
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 358d
The bourgeoisie are all dead, all we have left are capitalist oligarchs.
bigfondue@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 357d
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 357d
That's what I'm saying. The petty property owning class has been completely replaced by the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos. They pretend like they're helping the bourgeoisie, but home ownership is already dead.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 357d
They are the bourgeoisie. The term basically means you get your income from capital (investments) and not from your labor.
There is the petite bourgeoisie. They're the shop owners and such who tend to still work at those shops alongside their other workers. Historically, they have not been good allies of the working class, though there are a few exceptions.
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 357d
Are you really an middle class city dweller when you don't interact with cities or society at large at all? I think people with $10B+ in wealth, or people with political ties to Trump would be considered ruling class, not middle class city-dwellers.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 357d
"Middle class" does not map to the bourgeoisie. The whole lower/middle/upper class distinction is so poorly defined that you can say literally anyone is middle class. Might be upper middle class or lower middle class, but you're never not middle class. Worker/bourgeoisie/nobility is more specific, and it's a trap to try to see it as directly mapping over.
The term bourgeoisie was a distinction from the nobility who owned the land by right of birth. At the time, there was no other way to own land by purchasing it on the open market. The bourgeoisie emerged with early capitalism, and wanted to own land. The American and French revolutions were largely driven by the bourgeoisie with the help of the workers.
In chapter I of the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie are the heroes. They did break the power of the nobility's stranglehold on land ownership. Right-libertarians sometimes use this fact to say capitalism is great, but this is the wrong way to look at it. Marx and Engles never argued things should stay there just because anyone can theoretically aquire enough wealth to own land.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 31 pts · 358d
love the plural properties
merc@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 358d
There are probably landlords who own only 2 properties, and who are living frugally in a smaller one while renting out a bigger one. I doubt there are many, but in a city of 25 million, there are probably a few. But, this idea that a property in NYC will be "unsellable" is a bit absurd.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 15 pts · 357d
I encourage all frugal parasites in NYC to go ahead and panic sell their multimillion dollar properties and move to the red states.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 357d
And...?
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 357d
Or...?
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 29 pts · 358d
What if he goes after the Mom & Pop Billionaires and Mom & Pop corporations next?
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 6 pts · 357d
Mom & Pop Corp is legally proven to be made of people who had moms and pops.
wizzor@sopuli.xyz · 28 pts · 358d
I'd like to hear how many % of NY rental properties are owned by landlords with a net worth below 1M$...?
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 358d
Zillow has the average home price in NYC as ~800,000. So unless they also live in the rental probably near 0%.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 358d
Hey now there's at least one dude who owns and rents a property but lives out of a van going up and down the east coast. I'm just describing one of my uncles but swap East for West.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 1 pts · 357d
Not to validate the moronic narrative in the OP, but a million dollars is really not that much. Not even enough to retire in many places. Not where I'd put the standard for "mom and pop." I mean hell, your average mom and pop anything is probably worth a lot more than one million dollars.
wizzor@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 357d
In some sense you are right, but also 1 million in net assets is not just within the global 1% but less than 0.5%...
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 1 pts · 357d
That's true if we evaluate wealth as an absolute number, but then you miss cost of living and purchasing power considerations that make this not as simple as it sounds. For example, the real value of a million dollars will be very different between Switzerland, the US, China, Turkey, Jordan and Nigeria. Hell, even inside the US a million dollars in a wealthy NYC neighborhood is not at all the same as a million dollars in rural Alabama. Where I'm from a decent-sized apartment in a nice location would cost somewhere along the lines of $100k, for example. You can kind of correct for this using purchasing power parity, but even then that's not the whole picture. Having a million dollars of net assets in NYC is definitely privileged, but not global 1% levels of privilege.
BigBenis@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 357d
Won't anybody stand up for the
leecheslandlords??MangoPenguin@piefed.social · 24 pts · 358d
Housing is never 'unsellable', the price is just too high.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 358d
It's really easy for individual homeowners to end up with unsellable properties. It happened at a massive scale after the late 2000s housing crash. All that has to happen is that the price declines to the point that your mortgage balance + transaction costs are now worth more than the home's value. If you're in that situation, unless you have the tens of thousands in cash needed to make up the difference, you're trapped in your home. You could mail the bank the keys and default on the mortgage, but that wrecks your credit and the bank will keep tacking on fees, charging you for maintenance, etc. Your choice is either to stay in the home or declare bankruptcy. Selling isn't a choice you actually have.
randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 357d
Mom and Pop NYC landlords. I immediately want to balk at this statement but then I remembered two things. Firstly I remember "How to with Jon Wilson". He made an episode about buying the house from his landlord and that the only way to pay for it was to turn it into a rental property. His landlord was an old lady who wanted to move out.
Secondly, I remember meeting a couple who sold a brownstone before the pandemic, moved to Montclair NJ, and then purchased a home and turned their second floor into an apartment.
Do mom and pop landlords exist? Yes. Are they opportunistic? I don't think those single family homes should be allowed to be turned into apartments. I've seen some pretty heinous abuses of some people essentially turning a closet and a hallway into a "studio".
Maybe "Mom and Pop" landlords shouldn't exist.
Mossheart@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 357d
Maybe private landlords shouldn't exist.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 10 pts · 357d
"mom and pop" landlords should literally be a mom and pop, renting to their kid before they can afford their own place.
pyre@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 357d
mom-and-pop parasites fear promising antiparasitic
RedSnt@feddit.dk · 16 pts · 358d
Think of the mom and pops that suddenly can't make a parasitic living off of leeching money from their tenants?
elbiter@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 357d
This is what fascist media does: they bullshit you to death.
Maxxie@piefed.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 358d
here's an idea:
sell it
rayyy@piefed.social · 13 pts · 358d
Contrived outrage is insanely standard but it still works on the dotards.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 12 pts · 357d
I mean it's still a democracy. Just don't vote for him, if you don't like him?
spujb@lemmy.cafe · 21 pts · 357d
or we could slander him with red scare tactics and racism
ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 358d
Shouldn’t even be a business.
wowwoweowza@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 356d
I hope Mamdani wins and people have to charge fair rents and feel like they are suffering.
msage@programming.dev · 9 pts · 358d
I'm not tipping
kandoh@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 358d
Using language to deceive
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 356d
Getting "stuck" with property in New York City...
Quick, someone break out the worlds smallest violin.
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 356d
Good?
wizzor@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 357d
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 358d
I'm in here downvoting over semantics, actually unsure if people in the comments are unaware small time rental owners exist?
You can buy a house on a loan and repay it over 15 years. This provides a necessary service to those who rent because: 1) they don't want to be forced into a 15 year liability themselves or 2) they don't qualify for such a loan. A mom and pop landlord exists, and it absolutely is not their primary income.
spujb@lemmy.cafe · 0 pts · 358d
oh look another finitebanjo take, which would be incredibly based if housing was a commodity and not a gyatt damb HUMAN RIGHT
lol
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 358d
If you believe housing is a human right then you would be happy about small time landlords making housing more available as opposed to corporate landlords.