What if we make it illegal to own more than 2 residential properties. Yes, 2. Why 2? Because it won’t pull votes away from assholes with a summer house.
AND let’s make it illegal for corporate entities to own livable units, and force them to sell via eminent domain within 180 days.
There is some advantages to renting sometimes. I don’t think all properties should be for ownership only.
If you have to stay somewhere temporarily for a few years and intend on eventually moving, maybe you don’t want to go through all the hassle of buying a property. Renting is a simpler solution.
Or if you don’t want to be responsible for your residence, its maintenance, fees, taxes, etc. and rather let someone else take care of it, you can rent and let the landlord take care of everything.
Of course, capitalism and greed completely fucked up the whole system. Without strong regulation, there’s going to be abuses by anyone driven by greed.
Not all landlords are rat bastards. Some actually do care about their tenants and their well being and comfort. Just as there are tenants who just wreck everything in their residence and make a living hell for their neighbors and landlord.
I’ve been on both sides. I rented for nearly 10 years and had to deal with an asshole landlord at the beginning. The new landlord kept my rent the same for 8 years because she didn’t want to lose me since I was a good tenant who took care of my home. When my girlfriend and I finally moved in together, she kept her condi and decided to rent it in case our relationship didn’t work out after moving in together. And she’s had some awful tenants who destroyed her place. Right now she has good tenants and we’re doing our best to provide them a comfortable living space while being fair. We’re not looking to make profit off the tenants. Hell she’s even renting lower than what it actually costs to keep the place! Losing a couple of thousands per year on taxes and condo fees and replacing furniture when it breaks.
But, I gotta say, the rental market is plagued with greedy sociopaths and it’s hard to feel any sympathy towards any landlord.
You can still live on a property you don’t own without having a landlord. Housing cooperatives are a collective ownership of the property where you elect a property management board from the residents and pay a membership due for living there. There is no profit or excessive rent because it’s all money that belongs to you collectively.
In a co-op, you are a partial owner of the property. You still have to go through all the hurdles to get a mortgage, but it’s not difficult. Plus you have to deal with the risk of other co-op members defaulting on their loan. And you still have to participate in the maintenance and responsibilities. It’s not as simple as just renting a place.
Not all co-ops function that way. There are co-ops in my city exactly as I described. The process is even similar to applying to an apartment.
Edit: because the capitalist system is a fucking leech I had to look up the different types. I’m referring to “non-equity” co-ops. You’re referring to strata co-ops. Imo, those defeat the point of cooperatives.
The politicians to make such a law probably have at least 3 residential properties. One regular home in their state, one close their job in Washington and one for recreation.
Anyway it wouldn’t solve the issue. It would likely just create an illegal market.
Are you sure about that? If that’s true, it’s very new:
Under the new system, lawmakers can get reimbursed for hotel stays as well as utilities and insurance for property rented or owned in the capital. Members who bought property will not be able to claim reimbursement for principal or interest on their mortgage, but rental costs will be eligible to claim. The daily rate is capped at between $172 and $258, depending on the month.
They own a bunch of chain hotels (Best Western?), and fix prices. The US has among the highest rates for hotels in the developed world.
I recently went to Germany and for the same price I got 4 star amenities for what I’d pay for a very basic motel.
What if we make it illegal to own more than 2 residential properties. Yes, 2. Why 2? Because it won’t pull votes away from assholes with a summer house.
AND let’s make it illegal for corporate entities to own livable units, and force them to sell via eminent domain within 180 days.
Don’t make it illegal. Make it unprofitable.
Increasing taxes per property owned.
On 3+ extra taxes and huge fine if not rented for more than 3 months of the year.
We have an issue with comapnies and foreigners apparently buying property in cities then leaving them empty. Tax them HARD.
Much more likely to pass a plan like that then just making things illegal.
Nah, illegal, and a fire sale.
so just to be clear, does this mean two apartment properties, two buildings, or two units?
I’d say two thingies that can fit a single household each. So no, a hotel or an apartment complex wouldn’t count.
In some areas there’s nothing but plexes available. I’d say one plex=one property. Even if it has multiple units.
Then these shouldn’t be privately owned as a whole, wasn’t it the OP’s point?
There is some advantages to renting sometimes. I don’t think all properties should be for ownership only.
If you have to stay somewhere temporarily for a few years and intend on eventually moving, maybe you don’t want to go through all the hassle of buying a property. Renting is a simpler solution.
Or if you don’t want to be responsible for your residence, its maintenance, fees, taxes, etc. and rather let someone else take care of it, you can rent and let the landlord take care of everything.
Of course, capitalism and greed completely fucked up the whole system. Without strong regulation, there’s going to be abuses by anyone driven by greed.
Not all landlords are rat bastards. Some actually do care about their tenants and their well being and comfort. Just as there are tenants who just wreck everything in their residence and make a living hell for their neighbors and landlord.
I’ve been on both sides. I rented for nearly 10 years and had to deal with an asshole landlord at the beginning. The new landlord kept my rent the same for 8 years because she didn’t want to lose me since I was a good tenant who took care of my home. When my girlfriend and I finally moved in together, she kept her condi and decided to rent it in case our relationship didn’t work out after moving in together. And she’s had some awful tenants who destroyed her place. Right now she has good tenants and we’re doing our best to provide them a comfortable living space while being fair. We’re not looking to make profit off the tenants. Hell she’s even renting lower than what it actually costs to keep the place! Losing a couple of thousands per year on taxes and condo fees and replacing furniture when it breaks.
But, I gotta say, the rental market is plagued with greedy sociopaths and it’s hard to feel any sympathy towards any landlord.
You can still live on a property you don’t own without having a landlord. Housing cooperatives are a collective ownership of the property where you elect a property management board from the residents and pay a membership due for living there. There is no profit or excessive rent because it’s all money that belongs to you collectively.
Have you ever lived on a co-op?
In a co-op, you are a partial owner of the property. You still have to go through all the hurdles to get a mortgage, but it’s not difficult. Plus you have to deal with the risk of other co-op members defaulting on their loan. And you still have to participate in the maintenance and responsibilities. It’s not as simple as just renting a place.
https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-buying-a-co-op-property/
Not all co-ops function that way. There are co-ops in my city exactly as I described. The process is even similar to applying to an apartment.
Edit: because the capitalist system is a fucking leech I had to look up the different types. I’m referring to “non-equity” co-ops. You’re referring to strata co-ops. Imo, those defeat the point of cooperatives.
The politicians to make such a law probably have at least 3 residential properties. One regular home in their state, one close their job in Washington and one for recreation.
Anyway it wouldn’t solve the issue. It would likely just create an illegal market.
Like that time John McCain couldn’t remember how many houses he owned…
That was fun.
Maybe he just didn’t want to disclose the house where his mistress lived.
The one in Washington DC is rented and paid for by taxpayers. It’s part of the perks of being a politician.
Are you sure about that? If that’s true, it’s very new:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/07/house-finalizes-expenses-plan-00090806
Ah ok. I might be wrong then. Normally politicians get a rental unit to live in near their place of government.
Wait - are you canceling hotels?
No, you can still own ONE hotel. The reason why hotel prices are so high in the US is because of the Patel Cartel.
The Patel Hotel Cartel? Do tell.
They own a bunch of chain hotels (Best Western?), and fix prices. The US has among the highest rates for hotels in the developed world. I recently went to Germany and for the same price I got 4 star amenities for what I’d pay for a very basic motel.
Free market won’t allow for that.
That’s why they are suggesting we regulate it.