Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:34 PM Aug 2015

America without Landlords: A more in-depth discussion.

In an earlier post, I raised the general theoretical question of what would happen if owners of real estate could only buy or sell (or use it themselves) rather than renting out and being landlords. The fact of how horrifyingly one-sided, exploitive, and artificially price-inflated tenant/landlord business relationships tend to be is painfully obvious, and the massive power imbalance between tenants and landlords (even in areas with relatively strong tenant activism) is something our society has yet to address on a fundamental level.

So I would like to summarize the main objections that have been raised to banning landlordism in the very large number of comments the original post received. Although I answered a number of them, they were repeated so often that it became a chore to answer the same objections over and over, so here is a summary that everyone can consult and comment further on:

1. Big Gubmint!

Don't give a shit. I'm a liberal progressive, and I believe the government's job is to manage the economy for the benefit of society as a whole - which is what it either has been doing or supposed to have been doing since 1933.

If you are against the basic concept of the government regulating business, your opinions are beyond the scope of the topic, and completely outside my interest. If you're against the objective of the idea (greater wealth equality through government policy), then your opinion of whether the idea achieves that objective obviously involves a conflict of interest.

2. Would harm renters.

As explained in the original post, if the only two ways for profit-driven owners to make a profit are using the locations themselves or selling, most would find it more convenient to sell. This would reduce the market price of the real estate considerably, stabilizing only after the property has distributed widely enough that it's primarily being used by the owners (whether for habitation or business) rather than by very wealthy individuals or corporations whose sole function is to passively own and extort rent from users. With a drastically reduced price, far more people who were once forced to rent could afford to buy.

For the rest, we can very easily imagine any number of arrangements whereby groups pool resources, or else laws are changed to allow smaller increments of purchase. But these are details that should be left to specific legislation, and are not realistic objections to the fundamental concept of eliminating rental arrangements. The fact is that you can nitpick and use "Yeah, well, what about such-and-such a special case?!" arguments against laws that already exist and already work just fine.

But here's the most crucial fact: The status quo grievously harms renters. The very existence of the renter/landlord business arrangement - which is typically not voluntary on the part of the renter, but extorted by their circumstances and the market control exerted by current owners - harms renters. The status quo hurts renters, and is bleeding them dry. Bleeding the entire American middle class dry. The problem is vast and drastic, and here is one possible element of a solution to it.

You can throw in just about any mitigation to specific legislation to deal with timing, gradualism, increments, and other fine policy details, but fundamentally you cannot show why such a system - once fully implemented, with rational mechanisms put in place to address obvious concerns - is a bad idea. Objections become circular, saying that we cannot change because everything is already built around the current system, forgetting that the current system wasn't always the current system either. We have choices to make, and a fact to confront that the status quo is deeply harming us.


3. Would harm current homeowners.

There are a vast panoply of methods we can envision in legislation to deal with that - grandfather clauses, tax credit mitigations of losses, etc. This is, again, a question for specific legislation and not the fundamental idea. Because once the system is in place, and all the costs of transition are dealt with one way or another, there would be far more homeowners (although some would merely own apartments or even single rooms), keeping far more of their income because it's not being extorted by landlords. That is a good end in itself to seek, so the question is merely can legislation be designed that transitions to that without wreaking havoc?

The answer is obviously yes, if you believe in FDR-style liberal progressive democracy. The changes his administration wrought were far more drastic than this one, since this only concerns one element of one industry, and the parasitic speculative financial organizations that use it to engage in stock market fraud. So, if we are not so brainwashed by decades of conservative dogma into thinking a government can't handle something like this, what's the problem other than fear of change?

4. Would harm local tax revenues based on property value.

People buy property based on their ability to buy it, and that doesn't change just because prices fall. Usually they will buy exactly what they can afford, and if prices fall, they can afford a bigger house. But the total value of the house that person or family buys is the same because their resources to buy it are the same, so they pay the same in property taxes that they did before.

It's fair to say that the money would move around geographically, but that already happens: Some neighborhoods go down, some rise up. Some are blighted, some are gentrified, some cruise along just fine. All economic change does that. And if the argument against a positive change - an increase in general prosperity - is that it disrupts some local economies, that's a completely moot objection. Disruption caused by increasing prosperity is a good problem to have, and one that solves itself by people's ability to contribute to their communities and attract or start businesses increasing.

There is also the fact that people typically take better care of property when it's their own, and communities in general when they feel invested rather than feeling like a second-class citizen because they're not a land-owner.

This country started out being only of, by, and for white land-owning males. We've made a lot of progress on the white and male parts of that exclusionary legacy, but people who don't own real estate are still treated like peasants, extorted, and ignored by politicians. It's time to change that.

113 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
America without Landlords: A more in-depth discussion. (Original Post) True Blue Door Aug 2015 OP
So you got locked out of your own thread, and you want to start over, eh? X_Digger Aug 2015 #1
As I said, there were a vast number of repetitious comments raising the same objections. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #3
I said it over in the other thread. If you hadn't called someone a freeper, you could reply. n/t X_Digger Aug 2015 #4
One more for the Ignore List. Bye. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #7
Given your smug dismissal of real problems with your proposal, it doesn't surprise me.. X_Digger Aug 2015 #20
Your proposal was idiotic leftynyc Aug 2015 #99
!!!! zappaman Aug 2015 #44
you didn't address hill2016 Aug 2015 #2
I don't think that's the case. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #6
do you really hill2016 Aug 2015 #82
This would just create a giant black market for rentals. Throd Aug 2015 #5
Black markets are only born when a need isn't met. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #12
You sound like Nicolas Maduro. Throd Aug 2015 #16
You sound like ad hominem. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #36
No, you're supposed to accuse me of being a CIA stooge. Throd Aug 2015 #40
I agree. zappaman Aug 2015 #45
Then offer actual explanations of your objections instead of laughable Red-baiting. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #47
It's the same 3:00 am bong-addled ramblings I remember during art school in the early 90's. Throd Aug 2015 #50
Thanks for the insulting thought-terminating cliches, but I'm only interested in real comments. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #54
No, you're only interested in people who agree with this tripe. Throd Aug 2015 #62
Agreement is not required, only justification of your position, which you've failed to give. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #69
Spot on. College sophomores are all-wise, aren't they? Hekate Aug 2015 #113
Don't forget ethical... Positrons Aug 2015 #93
"They can choose to charge lower rents than they could get away with charging......." Really? WillowTree Aug 2015 #89
Posting this twice doesn't make it less silly mythology Aug 2015 #8
The OP argues otherwise, and your failure to answer any of its points concedes as much. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #13
It certainly doesn't argue persuasively mythology Aug 2015 #60
Let me guess - you can't afford a mortgage hack89 Aug 2015 #9
Accusing progressives of being envious of the rich. Never heard that one before. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #14
My mother is a landlord. She is not rich hack89 Aug 2015 #28
Point 3 deals with this. There are vast numbers of quite obvious ways that legislation True Blue Door Aug 2015 #34
But why should she have to give it up? hack89 Aug 2015 #51
The system is harmful. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #57
No it is not hack89 Aug 2015 #59
Let me get this straight: You're denying that rents have increased while wages have not? True Blue Door Aug 2015 #64
All those years I rented I was not exploited hack89 Aug 2015 #66
I'm very happy that your life experiences have gone smoothly. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #71
Your history is off too whatthehey Aug 2015 #107
I think renting is cheaper. yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #74
Lost my home after a seperation Codeine Aug 2015 #75
So sorry to hear that, but so glad things are well now yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #77
I will deny that renting is more expensive then buying. lancer78 Aug 2015 #79
The problem is that in cities where there is high demand for rentals snagglepuss Aug 2015 #70
That doesn't justify the OP's solution hack89 Aug 2015 #97
Do rent controls destroy property rights? snagglepuss Aug 2015 #104
No. But the OP has nothing to do with rent controls. nt hack89 Aug 2015 #109
How is it harmful to provide housing? whatthehey Aug 2015 #106
What about people that wan to rent Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #10
Again, this is a question for the details of specific legislation. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #17
How can we have a discussion if your solution is to 'wait for the legislation' Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #21
We can have a discussion about possible aspects of legislation. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #27
Ok, lets discuss one aspect Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #46
Renting is a means to an end, and that end is better achieved in other ways under this scenario. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #67
So fuck people that want to rent.. Okay. That'll fly. X_Digger Aug 2015 #72
Who the fuck are you to decide that? leftynyc Aug 2015 #100
Did you miss 2008-2012? yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #76
"The status quo grievously harms renters." Apparently, there was disagreement with that... cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #11
Rents constantly increase while incomes don't. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #18
All you're doing is stating an opinion; I respect that. But in the end, ALL it is, is an opinion. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #22
It is not opinion that rents constantly increase while incomes don't. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #29
We need to End Real Estate as a Commodity Market - Redux daredtowork Aug 2015 #15
I would agree with stricter rental regulation as a stopgap measure, but... True Blue Door Aug 2015 #23
Without mobility people become serfs daredtowork Aug 2015 #31
What if only you could not rent... XRubicon Aug 2015 #19
Please read the OP before commenting. Specifically Point 2. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #24
Sorry my bad, I forgot this is your made up world XRubicon Aug 2015 #25
And yet another one for the Ignore List. This is fun. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #30
Go ahead and ignore me too FLPanhandle Aug 2015 #33
and I offered to make you a movie star... XRubicon Aug 2015 #42
Again? Really? No thanks GitRDun Aug 2015 #26
Chiming in to say you have nothing to say is really unnecessary. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #32
I said a lot in the other thread GitRDun Aug 2015 #35
Responding to your disruptive comments is the waste of time. Ignored. Bye. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #38
In your case, I am quite pleased to be on the ignore list. GitRDun Aug 2015 #41
I just find this dumb. Having to buy an apartment to go to college is just nuts Yo_Mama Aug 2015 #37
This is another example of something trivially obvious language in legislation True Blue Door Aug 2015 #43
When people point out the practical problems, you call it 'trivially obvious' to fix muriel_volestrangler Aug 2015 #90
Prices are NOT going to be a lot lower TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #112
I'm interested in the point hughee99 brought up. Dr. Strange Aug 2015 #39
That is indeed an interesting question worth exploring. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #49
This thread is just as dumb the second time around. Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #48
Pro-tip: It helps if you read it before commenting. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #52
Oh, I've read the proposal and I wish I didn't. Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #95
Still twaddle. The "logic" holds up only inside your imaginary bubble, not the real world. nt Hekate Aug 2015 #53
And this kind of objection is still empty, knee-jerk "heresy" accusations. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #58
Many people prefer to rent. JDPriestly Aug 2015 #55
I've been a Landlord, renter and own home owner. rgbecker Aug 2015 #56
I've been here long enough to know this place has a mixture of viewpoints. True Blue Door Aug 2015 #63
Maybe we could start by just limiting landlords. Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #61
Rental income is taxed.n/t tammywammy Aug 2015 #65
Yeah. I mean like, more. To discourage it. nt Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #68
Not for lancer78 Aug 2015 #80
Just how low do you think prices would go? Codeine Aug 2015 #73
His original proposal lancer78 Aug 2015 #81
What? Krytan11c Aug 2015 #83
he thinks lancer78 Aug 2015 #84
Maybe for him 10000 isn't a lot Krytan11c Aug 2015 #88
Actually I am thinking about investing heavily in camping tents, perhaps some of the homeless would Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #78
sure is a fucking racket in AZ. Landlord tenant act is shit. Renter doesn't have a chance. lonestarnot Aug 2015 #85
On point #4 Krytan11c Aug 2015 #86
I'm not suggesting this solution but it has been done before Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #87
It would seem to be far less complex, plausibly unconstitutional, broadly disruptive, TheKentuckian Aug 2015 #91
still a dumb idea - sounds like a commercial for the Chamber of Commerce DrDan Aug 2015 #92
Land-use regulations, even when serving a legitimate... meaculpa2011 Aug 2015 #94
I rent because I don't want to mow lawns. alarimer Aug 2015 #96
Many people rent because they cannot afford a house. Some save for a down payment but Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #98
The biggest reason this wouldn't work dumbcat Aug 2015 #101
So are you a shill for the 'hospitality industry'? Because your proposal would be a boon to hotels Bluenorthwest Aug 2015 #102
Short term rentals would boom alright- and all long term rentals will just be converted to them Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #110
It's pretty obvious nobody can actually have this discussion with you and get anywhere Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #103
It's easy. A federal law which bans all economic relationships... meaculpa2011 Aug 2015 #105
This specious thread makes liberals look stupid. lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #108
Not to mention the fact....... WillowTree Aug 2015 #111

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
3. As I said, there were a vast number of repetitious comments raising the same objections.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:58 PM
Aug 2015

I thought it would be worthwhile to unify them under a single thread. Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
20. Given your smug dismissal of real problems with your proposal, it doesn't surprise me..
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:31 PM
Aug 2015

.. that your other tactic is ignore.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
99. Your proposal was idiotic
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:29 AM
Aug 2015

You called another poster a freeper for not agreeing with you (and apparently got locked out of your own stupid thread) and now you're being totally dismissive of anyone who calls you out on your bullshit. Go ahead and put me on ignore. You have zero to add to anything anyway.

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
2. you didn't address
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:50 PM
Aug 2015

two large problems

firstly lots of rich people are happy to buy up property without renting. many people can only afford to buy a place if they can rent it out. hence even more property will fall into the hands of the rich.

secondly even without considering the value of the land, the house has fixed costs that a buyer needs to cover (appliances, labor, building materials, finishings). if people can barely come up with rental security deposits, how are they going to come up with enough cash for a whole house.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
6. I don't think that's the case.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:05 PM
Aug 2015
firstly lots of rich people are happy to buy up property without renting.[/quote]

Because they still benefit from the asset appreciation created by others renting and speculating. If real estate were more commoditized, there is simply no business incentive to hold on to land you don't use productively. I'm sure some rich people would own just to own, like cars or whatever, but not nearly to the extent of the present case.

many people can only afford to buy a place if they can rent it out.


Right now. Remember, the prices would decline dramatically. And we're not only talking about houses, but also condos and apartments (and perhaps single rooms). Also remember that without having to pay extortionate rents, people who were once renters would keep a lot more of their income, even accounting for maintenance costs and taxes (landlords exact a substantial markup above these costs in rent).
 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
82. do you really
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:00 AM
Aug 2015

think the rich need a business reason to own property?

if there's a fire sale on real estate, who do you think will be scooping up everything in sight?

also, how much can prcies go down? at the end of the day, someone neds to pay for the capitalized costs of building a house. how do people come up with that sum?

Throd

(7,208 posts)
5. This would just create a giant black market for rentals.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:00 PM
Aug 2015

Leaving renters with even less legal protections.

I reject the foundation of your premise that landlords are inherently extortive.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
12. Black markets are only born when a need isn't met.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:16 PM
Aug 2015

How would highly commoditized, small-increment real estate sales (with all sorts of professional services to handle the details) fail to meet the same needs as renting minus the huge inflationary pressures of speculation and landlordism?

I reject the foundation of your premise that landlords are inherently extortive.


They can choose to charge lower rents than they could get away with charging, but why should ordinary people depend on the charitable nature of landowners to have affordable housing? It doesn't happen enough to meaningfully change the reality of life as a renter. The market is badly distorted by all the middle-men, and prices hugely inflated. Cost of living for renters just keep going up and up while the profits of the owners do likewise.

Something has to give.

Throd

(7,208 posts)
40. No, you're supposed to accuse me of being a CIA stooge.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:10 PM
Aug 2015

Face it. Your idea is a turd, no matter how much gold spray paint you apply to it. Affordable housing is indeed an issue which must be addressed, but I don't see your "solution" as workable or constitutional.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
47. Then offer actual explanations of your objections instead of laughable Red-baiting.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:19 PM
Aug 2015

I shouldn't have to demand that - it's basic rules of behavior in society.

When you have an objection, you state the objection, not say "Lolwut ur a Commie."

Throd

(7,208 posts)
50. It's the same 3:00 am bong-addled ramblings I remember during art school in the early 90's.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:26 PM
Aug 2015

It's just not as awesome as you think it is.

Some ideas are just so plainly dumb that they don't deserve a detailed analysis of why they are so plainly dumb.

Throd

(7,208 posts)
62. No, you're only interested in people who agree with this tripe.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:00 PM
Aug 2015

Ya know, True Blue Door, I have read your postings since you have arrived here and am always impressed with your intellect and writing skills. On the flip-side, I find your solutions to be not well grounded in real world consequences as they often prescribe a somewhat authoritarian remedy that is worse than the affliction. Having said that, I look forward to your next OP.

Have a good evening.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
69. Agreement is not required, only justification of your position, which you've failed to give.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:20 PM
Aug 2015

And stating that my views run toward authoritarianism is outright doublespeak that's 180 degrees off the plane of reality.

Describing democratization of something as authoritarian is freaking Orwellian. More people free to live their lives as they choose, more prosperous, less under the thumb of an ever-diminishing number of increasingly powerful plutocrats...somehow that strikes you as authoritarian.

I find that bizarre, to say the least.

Anyway, you have a good evening too.

Hekate

(92,331 posts)
113. Spot on. College sophomores are all-wise, aren't they?
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 05:29 PM
Aug 2015

Then they grow up. Or at least most of them do.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
89. "They can choose to charge lower rents than they could get away with charging......." Really?
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 06:00 AM
Aug 2015

How does that work? Because, if they charge rent in any amount, that would make them landlords and landlords, in the world you live in, have been outlawed.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
8. Posting this twice doesn't make it less silly
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:12 PM
Aug 2015

This is a clearly nonsensical proposal. The reason people gave you the same objections is that those objections fundamentally undermine the basic premise.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
60. It certainly doesn't argue persuasively
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:50 PM
Aug 2015

I already told you why this was a silly impractical idea. You opt to ignore it. That doesn't make me wrong or your point any less invalid.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
9. Let me guess - you can't afford a mortgage
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:13 PM
Aug 2015

And you resent the hell out of people more fortunate than you.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
28. My mother is a landlord. She is not rich
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:48 PM
Aug 2015

She and my dad were frugal with their money and invested in a couple of rental properties to live off of in retirement.

You want to take that away from her. That is not progressive.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
34. Point 3 deals with this. There are vast numbers of quite obvious ways that legislation
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:57 PM
Aug 2015

could protect ordinary people's investments made before the transition.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
57. The system is harmful.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:42 PM
Aug 2015

Is it a valid argument against changing a harmful system because you can come up with anecdotes of people who use it non-harmfully?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
59. No it is not
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:46 PM
Aug 2015

That is what is puzzling about your obsession - you have yet to demonstrate that an actual problem exists. At least a problem of such magnitude to require such a drastic solution. That fact that no one agrees with you should tell you something.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
64. Let me get this straight: You're denying that rents have increased while wages have not?
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:05 PM
Aug 2015

You're denying that landlords massively exploit tenants?

You're denying that renting is ultimately more expensive than buying, and represents a net upward wealth transfer?

Because nobody would be denying that here if those facts weren't being stated in support of this particular idea.

Does acknowledging that such drastic change is necessary just bum people out and make them not want to think about it or something, and make some engage in ridiculous denial? Like with climate change?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
66. All those years I rented I was not exploited
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:13 PM
Aug 2015

It was a conscious choice as part of a realistic assessment of my financial situation and local housing prices. The land lord was reasonable. When the time was right I bought a house.

People are not children. They can make their own choices without your help. Many want to rent. I say let them.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
71. I'm very happy that your life experiences have gone smoothly.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:27 PM
Aug 2015

But that's not a basis for forming general policy. And talking about people not being children is just more of that "Big Gubmint! Big Gubmint!" type reaction I dealt with in Point 1 of the OP.

People are indeed not children, so we can recognize when we're being screwed and act intelligently to correct it. Renters are at the very tail-end of a Human Centipede of thieving corporations, and their "choice" is between accepting the terms they're offered or leaving the entire region and any associated opportunities. That is literally the deal presented to commoners forced to live under the rule of nobles in the Middle Ages: Work for me on my terms or get the fuck out and starve!

Ordinary people today live under very similar conditions. They don't (and can't) work for themselves, they work for their landlords and their health insurance companies. We've made a little dent in the latter, but we haven't done much about the former.

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
107. Your history is off too
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:33 AM
Aug 2015

Feudalism meant peasants were locked into the area and were not allowed to leave for lower cost areas. You have that freedom. Perfectly liveable 1000 sq ft 2br single family homes with all amenities, city utilities and 7000 sq ft yards in safe neighborhoods can be bought for $50k here, with mortgage rates with average credit making that cost a bit over $300 PITI. Unemployment is under the national average so opportunities are fine. Why rent at all?

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
74. I think renting is cheaper.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:41 PM
Aug 2015

I have done both and trust me when I say I put out more money owning. When I was renting, it was great and easy....one check a month and done. Now the check is bigger but now I have to ensure upkeep which is expensive as anything. Sometimes I yearn for my renting days. It is sure easier.

 

Codeine

(25,586 posts)
75. Lost my home after a seperation
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:46 PM
Aug 2015

that occurred just as the real estate market imploded. Couldn't find a buyer before foreclosure.

Honestly, one of the best things that ever happened to me. Renting just works for me.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
77. So sorry to hear that, but so glad things are well now
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:48 PM
Aug 2015

I don't get the OP's thought process at all.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
79. I will deny that renting is more expensive then buying.
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 12:05 AM
Aug 2015

Where I live a 3 BR 2 BA house rents for $800 per month. That includes everything. A 30 year mortgage on the same place is $709 a month. The mortgage does NOT include property tax, maintenance, lawn care or insurance on the home. Add all those and it is another $200 a month easy.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
70. The problem is that in cities where there is high demand for rentals
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:21 PM
Aug 2015

rents soar and almost all income goes to rent which impacts the local economy and increases homelessness and increases the gap between rich and poor. I can speak from experience.

Not mention in the OP but also detrimental to quality of life and the ability to get ahead, is the high rent for small businesses.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
97. That doesn't justify the OP's solution
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:00 AM
Aug 2015

there has to be a middle ground that doesn't destroy private property rights.

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
106. How is it harmful to provide housing?
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:25 AM
Aug 2015

In the vast majority of the country, excepting constrained megalopolitan areas like NYC and the Bay Area, it is cheaper to buy than rent.

People who rent do so then because

a) they have bought into the bumff that this is less restrictive and more mobile (I've lived in 8 states with owned houses, and have never had a problem relocating efficiently. Certainly far less than a 12 mo lease would have caused), so renters by choice definitively willing to pay above mortgage prices (again with a few exceptions) for their perceived freedom and in some cases the laughable fantasy that they are not paying for maintenance repair or property taxes, which of course they are, just as part of monthly rent rather than in unpredictable chunks.

b) They are unable to secure a bank loan to get a mortgage. Renters by need. While there are always a few who if the median house price were 150k instead of 250k might qualify, most would still be left out of the market because banks don't want to be stiffed out of 150k any more than 250k, and people who cannot get loans are in that position almost universally because non-payment is a demonstrated probability.

So a wants to rent and b cannot get a mortgage and are unlikely to have enough cash to buy even at bargain basement prices. What are they supposed to do? Exactly how low do you imagine houses would drop? Unless it's within the cash range of the working class with poor credit, which is absurd on material costs alone, where do the b group live? What about the desire of the a group not to own?

Furthermore your property tax concept is laughable. Millions of people, me included, in fact likely the majority of all non starter-house buyers, buy a house on what they need/want not what they can just stretch to afford. My house cost, and is still worth, less than my annual income (I'm not spectacularly rich either, just live in a low cost area). I could easily buy four times the house. I don't want to. If I move to that 9th state and your plan is magically in place, I'll just buy the equivalent house at, say, half the price and pay half the property taxes. Good luck funding local schools and roads and services when the majority of home buyers do the same.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
10. What about people that wan to rent
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:14 PM
Aug 2015

An 18 year old in college, a temp assignment with a company.

Im a landlord. Ive replaced a roof last year for several thosand dollars. A lot of people can not afford it, or dont want the hastle.

Also, I buy a house, then rent it for around the same price as the mortgage and taxes. I make money when rents increase.

Somebody who can afford to pay rent can make a mortgage payment on that house, but maybe they dont want to own or maybe their credit is bad, which your dont seem to havr a solution for.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
17. Again, this is a question for the details of specific legislation.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:27 PM
Aug 2015

I could just as easily ask "What about people that don't want to rent right now, but are forced to by the artificially inflated prices of real estate"? Do you have an answer for that in defense of the status quo?

If we already had the system I'm talking about and you were advocating changing it to the system we actually have, could you answer that objection? Could you explain why millions of people who could afford to buy should suddenly be priced completely out of the market and forced to pay rent that constantly increases, to fewer and fewer owners charging more and more just because they can?

The test of the question is which system, once implemented and the costs associated with transition amortized, best represents the interests of the general public. There is essentially no argument for the status quo, because it doesn't even stay the same level of awful: It continues getting worse and harming people more and more.

You may be a great landlord, but your personal generosity doesn't change the reality of the market.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
21. How can we have a discussion if your solution is to 'wait for the legislation'
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:32 PM
Aug 2015

So lets close this entire thread, and wait for the legislation then.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
27. We can have a discussion about possible aspects of legislation.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:46 PM
Aug 2015

But what is unreasonable is to demand that I articulate a fully-formed bill to even concede that the basic concept is valid.

Think about it: Could you justify the current system if I turned it around and asked similar questions about it? If I bring up all the ways it fails people, creates poverty, etc., would you be able to explain in minute detail how current policy deals with those circumstances, or what sort of more cautious legislation would better deal with those problems?

The point is whether it is an economically superior circumstance, and if we have to delve into highly detailed special cases to find objections to a very general concept, that clearly suggests the concept is fundamentally sound and the objections are indeed a matter for legislation.

But if we concede that, then we need to say so explicitly, that this is a Good Idea, and that the objections raised to it would just be a matter of writing a good bill rather than a fundamental problem with the notion.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
67. Renting is a means to an end, and that end is better achieved in other ways under this scenario.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:16 PM
Aug 2015

But if someone wants to give away their money to a rich person or a corporation as an end in itself, people are perfectly free to donate their money to the rich and call them "Mr. Landlord Sir" if they feel like it. The law wouldn't stop that.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
72. So fuck people that want to rent.. Okay. That'll fly.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:31 PM
Aug 2015

College student? Let's fuck up your credit even more with a goddamned mortgage!

Think those student loans are a bitch? Well wait til you get a load of FORECLOSURE! WOO HOO!

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
100. Who the fuck are you to decide that?
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:38 AM
Aug 2015

I LIKE renting - I write a check every month and when it's time to get work done, I call the landlord and get it done. My mom gave up her house when dad died because she didn't want to continue to maintain it so she rents also. I've been renting my apt for over 20 years and I've never even MET my landlord let alone call him or anyone else sir. What's the matter? Can't afford a mortgage? Got screwed by a crooked landlord so now the rest of us are fools for renting? Just hate the rich? Just what the fuck is your problem?

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
76. Did you miss 2008-2012?
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:47 PM
Aug 2015

Buying a house was cheap!!!!!! Actually it still is. If you can't buy a house now, how can you later when the market started rising again?

Also you mentioned paying the house off immediately. How can that happen? Even if you sell your house for 20K, very few have that liquid cash. Car loans are real.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
11. "The status quo grievously harms renters." Apparently, there was disagreement with that...
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:15 PM
Aug 2015

on the other thread.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
18. Rents constantly increase while incomes don't.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:29 PM
Aug 2015

This is one of the key vectors of wealth concentration in America, and if we're going to do something about it, we have to address this archaic vestige of the ancient world in our modern economy.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
22. All you're doing is stating an opinion; I respect that. But in the end, ALL it is, is an opinion.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:33 PM
Aug 2015

I would add that in your first attempt at this, plenty of people said they'd rather rent than own. You must think them stupid.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
29. It is not opinion that rents constantly increase while incomes don't.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:50 PM
Aug 2015

And I'm sure some people right on the cusp of being able to buy prefer not to because of the enormous expense, but that doesn't mean their attitude would be the same at considerably lower prices and more streamlined processes.

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)
15. We need to End Real Estate as a Commodity Market - Redux
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:19 PM
Aug 2015

Redux:

The stock market has an SEC that regulates, steps in over major rises and falls, and punishes activities like rumor-mongering to create false markets. Why don't we have that to protect the rental market where people's shelter is literally dependent on the rents remaining stable rather than being blown up into speculation bubbles?

Also rents right now are being notoriously manipulated by factors outside the local community or even outside the country in "desirable" (for the purposes of investment funds) urban areas. Countries around the world with devalued currencies, crime rings, and corrupt government officials are investing in US real estate - and Janet Yellen is keeping interest rates low to encourage them to do so in hopes that it "drives" the economy (even if construction jobs are temporary, they look like "job growth" so we can fake some sort of economic recovery). California in particular dropped almost all support for developing low-income housing and decided to court these outside investors instead: local communities were undermined by absentee landlords speculating on the properties beneath them. Rents soared. Property owners had put laws in place long ago to "phase out" rent control, and now these laws worked in favor of real estate commodity brokers. Since these schmucks have all the money, they stuff political coffers, form local shadow governments, and ram lobbyists in the way of any attempt to stop their windfall-grab.

Landlordism isn't what needs to change: this country's workforce is mobile - people still need to be able to rent a place to stay.

What needs to change is the underlying concept that Real Estate that is being used for rental housing is a "hot commodity" for speculators.

Rental housing should be treated as a vended service. It should be highly regulated with a minimal profit structure. Landlords may "revolt" at first and claim no will rent, and perhaps that means there should be a competing public option for rental housing. But eventually the psychology will change, and some landlords who want to make stable, rather than windfall, money in that particular business will choose to provide that service. That will simply become the way rental housing is provided, take it or leave it. This will be like employers having to follow OSHA safety rules or having to pay minimum wage or like public utilities not being allowed to charge infinite prices just because everyone needs heat and electricity. Sure everyone WANTS to make windfall profits if they can, but they shouldn't be doing it at the expense of human shelter.

And if private landlords can't or won't do it that way, then we do need to develop enough building unit housing for those who need to rent. At that point people in nice houses have no right to complain about the tall buildings that have to be built right next to them. Younger, mobile workers need a place to stay. Elderly folk who wish to remain independent but who could never afford to own a home need a place to stay. Disabled people who have always been on a fixed income and who could never afford to buy a house, need a place to stay. Tough cookies: if this can't be vended through private sector houses, it will have to be via units in buildings developed expressly for the purpose. I'm not a fan of that outcome, but that's the obvious outcome.

Most of all these changes to the Real Estate market need to be ON DECK NOW. Congress brought the Planned Parenthood issue to a vote within a month. The housing crisis has been going on for a couple of years. Why does taking action on that need so much "process"? Having now seen how fast our government can act when it wants to, I would like to see the Federal government enact some commodities rules for housing used as rentals and put in place an SEC-like body to address those issues NOW. I'd like to see the State of California act just as quickly to overturn Costa-Hawkins and Ellis Act evictions so cities with rent control will have the tools they need to protect the rent controlled housing they have left from speculators while they wait for better regulatory tools to come down the pipe.

And I would like Janet Yellen to come out and admit that though her policies may enrich Wall Street and somehow "create jobs", the resulting housing bubble also does a lot of harm, and she has had no suggestions as what to do about that.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
23. I would agree with stricter rental regulation as a stopgap measure, but...
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:37 PM
Aug 2015

The fact is that countries even with very strict rental regulation still have very rigid class disparities, and renters are still politically and economically weak compared to owners.

Such measures almost create a legal enshrinement of class distinctions, and for my money, a docile aristocracy is still not what a progressive democratic society should be aiming for. We should be aiming for democratization of real estate (and everything else, for that matter).

People should own the real estate they use, and use the real estate they own. There should be no daylight between ownership and usage.

If they want to let someone use their property for free as a philanthropist, great - at least then they're using it. But real estate should not be a speculative fulcrum used by casino gambler investors and quasi-farmer absentee landlords who own property from afar and milk tenants like cows.

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)
31. Without mobility people become serfs
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:53 PM
Aug 2015

Serfs might technically own their property but they end up trapped on a larger estate, working the estate owner's farm, and paying the prices at the company store. Renting allows people to remain agile, moving from place to place. While you are renting, you don't have to worry about maintenance of the property, taxes, or any other issues. You can focus on whatever you came there to do.

If there was a way we could remove landlordism but still give people hostels so they could easily move from place to place - and they could easily trade in houses when they had to move - then maybe your argument would start to work.

Labor has to remain mobile or people become serfs.

XRubicon

(2,214 posts)
19. What if only you could not rent...
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:30 PM
Aug 2015

If you are renting now you would immediately be thrown out on the street. If you owned but had a mortgage you would be given 1 day to pay off the mortgage or be thrown out on the street- because if you have a mortgage you are renting from the bank.

Discuss with yourself... I'm sure you will have hours of enjoyment and enlightenment.

XRubicon

(2,214 posts)
25. Sorry my bad, I forgot this is your made up world
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:41 PM
Aug 2015

Last edited Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I like mine better though. I could add that you are a movie star or something... would that help?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
32. Chiming in to say you have nothing to say is really unnecessary.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:54 PM
Aug 2015

Just not commenting at all avoids wasting anyone's time.

GitRDun

(1,846 posts)
35. I said a lot in the other thread
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:02 PM
Aug 2015

Your OP was not well thought out the first time. THIS OP IS THE WASTE OF TIME.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
37. I just find this dumb. Having to buy an apartment to go to college is just nuts
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:06 PM
Aug 2015

And if you don't allow rentals, it's that or a tent, right?

Campground America doesn't make any sense to me.

Even if I had the money to buy and moved to a new area for a job, I wouldn't want to buy. First I would want to rent for six months or a year and then, when I knew the area and knew I was going to stay, I'd start looking for the place I really wanted, where I really wanted to live.

It's not quick to buy a place. A month, even if it's an all-cash deal. For most, two to three months.

A lot of rentals are needed. It is neither cheap nor quick to buy or sell RE, and there are times in life when everyone has to live somewhere and doesn't want or need to buy at that time.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
43. This is another example of something trivially obvious language in legislation
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:15 PM
Aug 2015

could address, as mentioned in Point 2.

Moreover, the circumstances you're describing are all features of the status quo, and are not inherent facts of real estate. You seem to think I'm saying that current buying practices would be expanded, and I'm telling you they wouldn't even be the same kind of transaction most of the time because the price would be a lot lower, volume a lot greater, and the legislation introducing it could tailor systems to your sort of need.

But if you're saying you're just fine and dandy with the status quo, then you are lucky. A lot of people are not. They don't choose a system where they are bled dry - it's forced on them.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,763 posts)
90. When people point out the practical problems, you call it 'trivially obvious' to fix
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 06:03 AM
Aug 2015

but you are unable to say what the trivially obvious fixes are, whether to:

the large amount of people who need accommodation on a short-term basis, because their circumstances change (family separation, new job, study, short-term work ...)

or people who don't have the money to purchase it outright (which can't go below the cost of building it - though you did claim, without evidence, that the whole construction industry is a conspiracy to artificially drive up building costs) (are you still, like your original post, going to ban people from borrowing to purchase their home?)

or owners who already have mortgages on homes the live in, which will go underwater.

And when DUers say that people should be allowed to enter into agreements with others to use their property in a mutually beneficial way - ie renting it - you say "but I don't like that". Have you wondered why there has never been a country anywhere in the world which has tried this? Some countries have banned private landlords, but they did it by nationalising the properties, so that they can actually continue to satisfy the need for accommodation without forcing everyone to become an asset-owning capitalist trader. Not everyone wants to invest money in something that can vary in value (and the idea of people buying smaller and smaller parts would be even more volatile - the price someone would be willing to pay for a unit that shares facilities with crappy neighbours that you can't force out, and that you can't afford to walk away from, could vary wildly).

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
112. Prices are NOT going to be a lot lower
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:13 PM
Aug 2015

Already built houses are not going to sell for that much lower than houses that will be built tomorrow. And houses that will be built have fixed costs that can't be lowered.

Labor and materials costs add up. How are you going to lower the costs on the materials to build that house? That bathtub? The kitchen sink? The carpet? The windows. And on and on. Let's say you manage to skim off $20,000 in savings on a $200,000 house with your scheme. That's still not affordable to a lot of people!

The price is NOT going to go down as much as you think it will.

Furthermore, what do you plan to do about mortgages? Down payments?

Please explain.

Dr. Strange

(25,955 posts)
39. I'm interested in the point hughee99 brought up.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:07 PM
Aug 2015

What happens to hotels? What's to keep landlords from becoming a hotel? Are we outlawing hotels?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
49. That is indeed an interesting question worth exploring.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:26 PM
Aug 2015

Off the top of my head, the easiest answer would be that zoning and inherent expenses would deal with it: You can't run a hotel in a residential-zoned neighborhood, and the costs of running a hotel would make it impractical as a grey market replacement for renting.

Obviously it would be more complicated than that, but that's a good start to an answer.

Ace Rothstein

(3,241 posts)
95. Oh, I've read the proposal and I wish I didn't.
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:46 AM
Aug 2015

The value of all residential real estate in the US is over $25 trillion. You want to crash that. So everyone who has poured their life savings into their house is now fucked over in your proposal. It is literally one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
58. And this kind of objection is still empty, knee-jerk "heresy" accusations.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:44 PM
Aug 2015

I would wonder how you'd have reacted to New Deal proposals before they were mentioned by someone in authority.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
55. Many people prefer to rent.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:41 PM
Aug 2015

Here are some of the reasons:

The renters are seeking a place to live but don't want to get stuck in a house they own because they hope to or plan to move.

The renters own a house somewhere which they are renting out, and are just seeking to rent a second house near their work.

The renters don't have the credit rating to buy.

The renters don't have the money to make a downpayment and fix up a house to move into.

The renters found a really reasonably priced place to rent that they could not afford to buy.

The renters are planning to get married and just renting until they get married and then move into a house they buy as a couple.

The renters don't want the hassle and cost of keeping up their own house, and upkeep on the rented property is the landlord's responsibility.

The renters are renting a condo in an area in which they could not afford to buy.

There are so many good reasons to rent, many more than I have listed.

We rented for years. We did not buy a house until we thought we were in a city in which we could and would stay for a long time. We have not regretted that decision.

rgbecker

(4,851 posts)
56. I've been a Landlord, renter and own home owner.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:42 PM
Aug 2015

This is a great idea, True Blue. This progressive website can't even get behind it, so I'm thinking it is going no where. That said, it would make a great economics paper. Addressing the necessity of a huge mobile population of workers who would be looking to sell their possibly undesirable house and buy in a up coming area where the housing just doesn't exist would be an interesting starting point.

Thanks for airing this.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
63. I've been here long enough to know this place has a mixture of viewpoints.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:02 PM
Aug 2015

And a lot of the most vocal objections are clearly not even coming from the progressive spectrum, so I take the some of more poisonous reaction with a huge grain of salt (and antibiotics).

In fact, it's kind of encouraging seeing the virulence of the response - clearly the idea strikes a nerve. Some of it borders on the kind of stark raving terror you would hear from conservatives during the Cold War whenever anyone would propose a progressive reform. Every welfare program and tax increase was another step toward Stalinism.

It would be laughable, if not for...well, no, it really is laughable how they're reacting. You're correct the challenges are immense, but clearly some folks sense just how resonant an issue this could be.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
61. Maybe we could start by just limiting landlords.
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:57 PM
Aug 2015

So limit the number of units that one person can own.

Just like you know how we used to have laws capping the number of media outlets a company could own in a single city?

Like that. So we could say no landlord could own more than 100 rental units in a city. Or to be more aggressive we could make the number 20 or 5.

Also we can tax rental income to discourage it.

I agree with the philosophy side of what your saying. But this is a liberal web forum right, and you're giving a radical idea? And I agree personally.

So wanted to give these other reformist ideas that maybe some liberals could go along with.

 

Codeine

(25,586 posts)
73. Just how low do you think prices would go?
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:41 PM
Aug 2015

Land is finite, building materials aren't free, and skilled construction labor doesn't come cheap. I think you overestimate the amount buy which home prices would fall. Poor-ass people (of which I am one) would find a mortgage (assuming one has credit less laughable than my own) no less onerous than rent.

Have you read any economic analysis or theory that would serve to back up your proposal? Has anyone run these numbers, ever? Have any credible economists seriously put forth such a plan?

And what does your idea accomplish that simple rent control legislation wouldn't? Is the notion of ownership that intrinsically important that it has to be forced on everyone?

Perhaps, then, you are merely philosophically opposed to the notion that a homeowner can profit via the collection of rent? Why not forcibly appropriate all housing and simply assign families and individuals homes, then? That seems, on the face of it, about as radical and utterly, impossibly unrealistic as your Antilandordism policy.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
84. he thinks
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:42 AM
Aug 2015

Individual condos or apartments will be around 10,000. After all, borrowing money is just another form of renting and the bank is the landlord

Krytan11c

(271 posts)
88. Maybe for him 10000 isn't a lot
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:47 AM
Aug 2015

But for me that's about 4 months salary without any other expenses. In other words unobtainable without a loan of some sort. I know you get this, too bad the op doesn't.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
78. Actually I am thinking about investing heavily in camping tents, perhaps some of the homeless would
Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:55 PM
Aug 2015

like to live in a tent when they can not afford to purchase a home or keep it up.

Krytan11c

(271 posts)
86. On point #4
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:45 AM
Aug 2015

I don't think you understand how property taxes work. They are based on the assessed value of the property. If you cause property values to fall then taxes fall with them. Many municipalities are "growth locked" by surrounding cities. In these places no new houses will be built because they are at peak number of houses.
Also, why are you so sure that the rich are going to sell their assets right away or even fairly quickly. You assume that they will behave like the fictional homo economicus. In reality they will probably sit on their holdings, they can afford to, and wait for the fallout of your legislation to cause it to be reversed.

TheKentuckian

(25,302 posts)
91. It would seem to be far less complex, plausibly unconstitutional, broadly disruptive,
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 06:53 AM
Aug 2015

and possibly likely to incite a civil war to just provide the homeless with homes.

You do that and the artificial scarcity would be taken out of the market and the rest would shake out and equalize but do so less dramatically and without a period of exaggerated homelessness with weird grandfathering that seems to either negate the point or robs a lot of people not particularly wealthy of their incomes or probably both and tax schemes to make the transition while abusing the Commerce clause so severely that you codify vassal status for what used to be citizens, suddenly if not wiping out certainly kneecapping a significant sector of the economy, and stifling mobility both literally and economically of most.

Hell, where do a huge swath live while the system fully impements and what happens if prices aren't as impacted as you project?

Keep it simple, make a natural market and odds are high that your concerns will all be addressed and if not there is a real safety net in place.

DrDan

(20,411 posts)
92. still a dumb idea - sounds like a commercial for the Chamber of Commerce
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 07:24 AM
Aug 2015

Force the long-term temp owners and long-term visitors into hotels. And when they lack cooking facilities, they can head to the local restaurants. I live in an area where thousands of Canadians make multi-month visits annually - what a boost to local business interests.

And think of the boost in hotel-room revenue with this new-found demand.

Yep - put that rental money into the hands of the business-folk.

Have you shared this idea on the other site? They will be thrilled with this new-found money-making opportunity.

And anyone who prefers to rent . . . tough. Buy or head to a hotel.

good heavens . . . what an absolutely non-thought-out idea.

meaculpa2011

(918 posts)
94. Land-use regulations, even when serving a legitimate...
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:12 AM
Aug 2015

public interest, cannot deprive the land owner of viable economic benefit from their property.

It's that pesky Bill of Rights again.

We wonder why observers consider us kooks and crackpots.

alarimer

(16,299 posts)
96. I rent because I don't want to mow lawns.
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:56 AM
Aug 2015

Or do basic maintenance. Let someone else do that shit. Owning property is just being tied to sheer drudgery on days off.

Bad enough I have to vacuum.

I do think we need better enforcement of housing standards. Cheap apartments are usually in terrible condition, often unsafe for human habitation because the owners care more about profit than they do about providing affordable housing.

And of course there is not enough affordable housing in many places in this country.

I do agree with the part that renters are almost never considered politically and I think there is something unsavory about encouraging home ownership at all cost. This fetish for single-family homes has led to disastrous suburban sprawl, which has devastated wildlife habitats, led to lots of environmental destruction due to the enormous burden of the road system.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
98. Many people rent because they cannot afford a house. Some save for a down payment but
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:08 AM
Aug 2015

many cannot. That means the prices of these apartments-stolen-to-become-houses would have to be priced below what renters are currently paying for rent.

dumbcat

(2,123 posts)
101. The biggest reason this wouldn't work
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:44 AM
Aug 2015

is that the law (which could never be passed in the first place) would be roundly ignored by almost everyone, and agents of the government that attempted to enforce it would be met with torches and pitchforks and worse. The politicians that attempt to support it would be voted out of office, or assassinated. Property rights are just too ingrained into our psyche and have been for thousands of years.

Other than that ...

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
102. So are you a shill for the 'hospitality industry'? Because your proposal would be a boon to hotels
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:57 AM
Aug 2015

and restaurants, stripping citizens of the option of renting a home when working in an area for an extended but limited time, or when there to study, research or just to enjoy the place. People also need geographic flexibility just to care for elder family and for any number of other reasons.

At least your folks at Marriott would score big. Which really seems to be the point here. To control rents, you make rent controls, you don't make renting illegal, you make it heavily regulated.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
110. Short term rentals would boom alright- and all long term rentals will just be converted to them
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:59 AM
Aug 2015

As people used them for long term rentals because they couldn't/don't want to buy a home.

In fact, all landlords have to do is convert their long term rentals to short term rentals and rent to the same person week after week- creating a defacto long term rental and getting around this idiocy. Evict all your current long term tenants, list it on Air BnB by the week, let people book as many weeks as they want.

Unless the OP wishes to ban all hotels and short term rentals as well, or use the police to force people out of a rental after XXX days as part of the mysterious undefined "legislation" that will fix all the problems with this crazy plan.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
103. It's pretty obvious nobody can actually have this discussion with you and get anywhere
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:01 AM
Aug 2015

Because you don't actually have a clue how it works, how real estate works, and when pressed for how it would apply to real-world examples where renting is better you just say "See #2 we will fix that with legislation".

But you have no proposals how to fix it with legislation, and no ideas that could work, just the magic "we will let Congress fix it" as if that is actually an answer and not a complete cop-out when people tell you why this is a horribly stupid idea.

Its pretty clear from how naive you are about real estate transactions with your idea of people quickly buying a "share of a home" and such that you have never actually purchased a home or had dealings in real estate.

I know, I know "legislation will fix that problem with it being complicated to buy a share of a home" is your magic answer to any of the real-world problems with this nutty plan. In the real world you can't just say "legislation will fix that" without actually proposing what that legislation says and does with some specificity and expect to be taken seriously.

So, lets see your SPECIFIC proposals for legislation that will be passed to make your scheme work.

Not just generalizations like "tax credits" "gradualizatioon" that are meaningless without details but actual proposals with some specificity. Actual proposals for how the law would look and read that enables your plan to work

If you don't have that, and you have no idea what that would look like, then you don't actually have a valid proposal- you just have what looks like sour grapes over a bad landlord and/or jealousy pushing you to look for legislation that affects everyone to fix your specific situation.

meaculpa2011

(918 posts)
105. It's easy. A federal law which bans all economic relationships...
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:17 AM
Aug 2015

which I determined to be exploitative, insensitive or offensive.

I will provide a detailed list after the legislation is passed.

"If any form of pleasure is exhibited...

Report to me and it will be prohibited."

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
108. This specious thread makes liberals look stupid.
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:44 AM
Aug 2015

Renting may be exploitive and inhumane, but it's less inhumane than wholesale homelessness.

The argument goes something like this:
q) why should only landlords get the benefit of the capital investment?
a) because they invested the capital.
q) that's not fair! Everyone should share the benefit! Outlaw rent and make tenants owners.
a) okay, but how can the tenants afford it?
q) if you can't demand rent, property values drop to the point would-be tenants could afford to buy.
a) in what way does that help all these new mandated buyers "get the benefit of capital investment"? Besides, most tenants can afford to buy at only the price they paid to rent. I would dislike being stuck in an apartment err... condominium in which every unit sold for less than $1000 and in which no one has any significant financial interest in preserving and maintaining.
But those "owners" would have you to thank for their predicament when it's time to move to the next town. The only reason a person would buy my unit is because every other condo in town is in a similar shape, and no one is building new ones.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
111. Not to mention the fact.......
Wed Aug 5, 2015, 12:49 PM
Aug 2015

.......that purchase prices would have to fall more than a little below the point where monthly mortgage payments would equal what rent payments previously were because the new buyer will now, in addition to the monthly amount required just to stay in the housing unit in question, also have to come up with the cash for maintenance, repairs and property taxes.

People throw out these Pie in the Sky hyper-simplified ideas with not the first clue what they're talking about and then stubbornly cling to their premise no matter what actual facts they're presented with. It's almost amusing. Almost.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»America without Landlords...