• Woozythebear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Or just ban Landlording of housing and problem solved. The homelessness crisis immediately ends and houses become so cheap that everyone can afford them.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      There is a need for renting, so there has to be some balance to avoid all that capital being driven toward forcing renting to be the only option while still allowing some housing stock be available for renting (eg people who know they won’t be there more than two years)

        • skyspydude1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Oh man, I sure would have loved to live nowhere near my job and forgone most of my hobbies for nearly 3 years. There’s definitely no reason why anyone would ever need to rent a SFH ever.

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      So you wish to and can afford to buy a home right now? Are there even enough homes? If not, where will you live? How will such housing be provided for you and what will you offer in exchange?

      Personally I’d like to see housing provided as a basic human right along with health care, income and a few other things but I’m guessing that’s not happening any time soon. Interested to hear what you think of how this will work.

      • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        “The United States boasts approximately 15.1 million vacant homes, a staggering number that accounts for 10.5% of the country’s total housing inventory.”

        There are enough homes for everyone

        • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I’ll get the trains ready to forcibly move the unhoused to where to where an empty house is…you wanna start rounding them up, or are you still busy finding them a job they’re able to do so a bank will let them buy one of those houses?

          Edit: the situation isn’t as simple as you’d like it to be. If it were, it’d been solved already.

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ok, that’s great. So are we confiscating them? Or are we forcing the owners to rent them out, and if so who’s paying? I’m serious - how would you approach this?

          • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Landlords get 2 years to sell and after that if they still haven’t sold they go to auction and get whatever money comes from that.

            And to counter your 2nd argument I don’t give a fuck how bad they get screwed. They should have thought about that before they decided to become leeches on society and profit from basic human rights.

            • enbyecho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Landlords get 2 years to sell and after that if they still haven’t sold they go to auction and get whatever money comes from that.

              Are these just empty houses or all rental properties? Who are they selling the homes to? How will those people pay for them? Could those buyers, say, then rent out a room to help with the mortgage payments? And you say you don’t care, but should people who put their money into a home and left it empty, say because of a divorce or some medical problem be penalized too? What about people who rent out a home that they inherited and don’t want to sell because it has sentimental value? I assume in your mind this is a blanket forcing of people to sell or even forfeit an asset they paid for?

              They should have thought about that before they decided to become leeches on society and profit from basic human rights.

              I’m curious if your “leeches” characterization applies across the board. Logically if you think people who rent out physical spaces this should apply to anyone who rents out something of value… say their labor or a taxi driver or has a business where you pay to borrow something. Wouldn’t those be “leeches” too?

              I agree that housing is a basic human right, but unfortunately most of the rest of the world doesn’t. And that means we don’t have mechanisms for dealing with this and I’m troubled with some aspects of your ideas - it would be unfair to many. I know quite a few people who could only afford to buy a house by renting out a room or by creating an in-law apartment, backyard apartment and so on. They are landlords but I’m struggling to think of them as leeches. Would you call them all leeches?