this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
565 points (94.8% liked)

Comics

5950 readers
2 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine πŸ‡΅πŸ‡Έ . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Should be illegal to own more than two homes honestly. Especially if you're using them as rental properties. You should get one rental property and that's it. The rest must be residence

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Just make it illegal for businesses to own real estate, or participate in real estate markets of any kind outside of strictly regulated commercial areas.

Also make laws that protect home owners not banks... The list goes on... Nationalized food production, making it illegal for incorporated cities to have more than a very small number of homeless.

[–] cheesebag@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

This would be a much better policy than OP's "over 10", since 82% of investment home purchases in Q2 2023 were to those with 9 or fewer houses. Investment purchases made up about 24% of all home purchases.

[–] BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why should they get a rental property? Why should basic fundamental human necessities of which we have plenty be treated as commodities? You get the house you live in, and I get the house I live in, and if you want to try to extort me for payment for that house no one should support you.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Some people have seasonal homes, and spend half the year in each. I'm not opposed to renting out the vacant one (which was part of the original purpose of air bnb). It's a little lavish, sure, but definitely not the same as hoarding property to rent out.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Some people do prefer to rent than deal with the hassle of homeownership, so there is a place for people renting out a second property. No one needs to rent out more than one property through, corporate ownership should be abolished for anything that is not a single building (i.e. 50 units in a condo building) as well.

[–] DarkSirrush@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Shouldn't even be allowed one property intended for rental honestly.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 9 points 3 months ago
  • single family dwellings – maximum of two
  • multi-family dwellings – landlord is required to live in the same building as tenants
[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm fine with renting as it spares me all the hassle that comes with owning. I live in Germany where renting is heavily regulated and it works so good that nearly 60% of the people over here never own any of the flats or houses they happily live in.

Ten should be the max number as that represents an average apartment house over here.

[–] voldage@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, but you could rent from the government instead of private owners. You have completely no leverage over them, and government could use the rent money to build more housing for renting or sale and drive prices of housing down instead.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm all in with your suggestion and want to point to housing cooperatives which are nonprofit by default and make the members co-owners of the complete stock of housing the cooperative is owning and managing.

Over here in Hamburg cooperatives handle about 20% of all housing dampening prices in general as they rent noticeably cheaper than owners who want to turn a profit (in Germany rents are bound to certain maximum levels defined by the market in the city).

Vienna has even more housing in the hands of cooperatives which definitely helps with housing and prices.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have more leverage over civilians than I'll have over any government agency, ever.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What leverage do you have over them? Government agencies?

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I have fists

And the legal system, which is far more efficient when it comes to fuck over people than the government.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It'd be tough finding rental properties in cities with apartment buildings. Or you'd have mishmash of owners which could make it harder to deal with them and possibly get them built.

Definitely would be interesting seeing how the market would deal with it.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

the market is dealing with it by enriching a few landlords at the expense of a small army of homeless people in a given metropolis

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I'm talking about the proposed limit