ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

    • quixotic120@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      The policy issue to overcome here in America is a robust pension system. Home values are obscene for a lot of reasons but one of the biggest reasons no one does anything about it is because for most non elite Americans the home they own is their most valuable asset and the growth in equity ends up becoming a significant contributor to retirement

      Even with that the dream is over; the days of baby boomers buying houses and seeing explosive growth of 12-20k in 1960 to 200ish-k in 2010 or even gen x buying a house for 100k in 1995 and seeing it mature to 400k in 2020 are unsustainable. The people buying 250-400k houses now (like me) would be foolish to expect their homes to be worth millions in 30 years outside of hyperinflation.

      But I bet money we will cling to it. It’s difficult having seen the past several generations retire very comfortably via the equity in their home, while we make the $2000 mortgage payment that will get us housing but not this benefit. Another way millennials get fucked out of something that every modern generation before them had. To be fair this one had to die but it just sucks all of this gets saddled on us because it’s not like there’s a strong likelihood social security is getting fixed in time

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The woman I toured a few houses with last week is in her late 60s and I was telling her how frustrating it was to have lost so many houses to people offering cash deals 30k over list. She decided to tell me a long story about how she reconnected with a lost love and moved down to Florida with him. But being far from family was tough so they decided to buy a second house out here for when they travel. They got “an amazing house” by offering cash, 30k over asking. She lamented how it felt like they were taking someone’s starter home but her now-husband reassured her that whatever family they outbid just has to wait 20 years.

        All I could say was, “you probably did buy a young family’s starter home. Maybe it was even mine.”

        Congrats on owning two houses, I guess.

      • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Buying a home now requires so much money down, and will still have monthly payments higher than renting, it’s not even a question for me. Home ownership isn’t in the cards and may never be.

    • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      With homes i agree and with apartment buildings over 10 units it should be mandated to maintain 95% occupancy year round across ALL owned buildings. Only reason I say 95% is because there’s gonna be highs and lows so I think 5% is very fair for unoccupied space. This would also cover the in-between of someone moving out and needing to get the unit ready for another person. If a land owner can maintain that then I think it’s fair to let them continue growing and should they fail to meet the requirements then they can’t buy any more properties. I would recommend also that 1 single year of 95% doesn’t immediately qualify you for growth. A penalty of 2 years consistently having 95% must be required.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not sure you thought through your numbers if only because 95% of 10 means you can only have half a unit unoccupied.

          • QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            But the comment says it would apply to buildings with over 10 units. So, for a building with 11 units, that gives 132 unit-months per year. With a maximum unoccupied rate, that’s 6.6 unit-months per year.

            As the renter, I’d really appreciate my landlord wait until I’ve actually moved out to start showing my unit, although they don’t always do that. Assume all 11 units decide to move at the end of their leases, that means the owner has a little about 3 weeks per unit to clean, do any maintenance and repairs, and find a new tenant. If the unit needs extensive repairs/cleaning, the owner probably doesn’t want to even start showing it until the repairs are completed. Hopefully most tenants renew their leases and stay longer than 1 year, but the owner can’t count on that. Even on a larger building, the numbers still average out to 3 weeks per unit, but at least the effect of a few extra non-renewals is smaller.

            I think a 90% occupancy rate would be a little more realistic, but would probably still need some room for exceptions.

            • hex@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah, I don’t disagree with you. 95% is probably just a random number the other commenter came up with. Certainly if this system was to be put in place, we’d need to have a more flexible solution than just a plain percentage.