God, I want to become a mayor or governor or something so I can push a rule through that says only 5% of single-family properties in any jurisdiction are allowed to be rentals, and landlords have to purchase what amounts to “tokens” from the city that are priced inverse proportionally to the ratio of tenant income to rent to be able to keep the rental. Also, wage discrimination is not allowed. If a potential tenant comes forward with proof, the landleech has to prove that they did not discriminate or they will not be allowed to purchase tokens the next year.
Idk, something. Some limitations on the number that any individual can hold in a city and punish them for overcharging.
There’s something to this. Sounds like taxi medallions.
I would settle for a law requiring owners of rental properties to be residents of the same state so they can be properly hauled into court when they break laws.
I’ve seriously been considering checking out what it would take to build homes and just make a company that only builds starter homes that can’t be sold to corporations. Fuck this system running out of control… Rent through the roof and no housing for the poor/lower middle class…
I absofuckinglutley do not in the slightest bit care about being rich, if the company could survive and support a “normal” life for me that would be more than enough.
It’s absolutely absurd that we allow the market to run rampant like this and just shrug it off. “Housing crisis? I don’t see one, we’re selling large houses like hot cakes! Most well over asking price!”
So something like a for (ethical) profit Habitat for Humanity? I have had a similar fantasy, start companies in each of the major problem sectors that operate openly and honestly only slightly above solvency and offer quality at good prices just to drive the greedy fucks out of business, then I just stay there. I don’t take advantage of the monopoly, I just live as I have been. I envision putting the actual material and labor cost of each product on the packaging in plain English. Kinda like a dietary and ingredients info table for a television. Don’t put in spyware, don’t put in random hidden cameras behind a screen, don’t take permissions on devices so I can listen in on people. Do a bank that micro-lends at a 1% markup from the interest rates on my savings accounts. Make everything repairable and put a wiring schematic on the inside of the case if it is a large enough unit. Etc. You know, be ethical in the way I treat my employees and customers. I know, radical concept. I guess that is just the effect of having a math degree, I’m used to radical concepts.
No renting at all? Why buy a home then? You’re just setting yourself up to become trapped in a bad situation. If you don’t have the flexibility to rent out your property when you get a new job somewhere else, or lose your job and can’t cover the mortgage, then you’ll either be foreclosed on or forced to sell possibly at a loss. Remember, when you buy a property, you are immediately under water due to selling costs of 6-8% of the property’s value.
Let’s picture this scenario:
You buy a house for $300,000
You lose your job a month later and cannot afford the mortgage. Your options are:
sell your house, which will cost $24,000 in selling costs (seller/buyer agent fees), and since your property was bought only a month ago, you don’t have any equity and would have to sell at a loss. Since you lost your job, you have no more money to lose.
wait for the bank foreclose on you
try to hang on to the property by renting it out until you can get back on your feet
If renting isn’t an option, this rule would create a lot of problems for people. The solution isn’t to regulate what people do with their own property more, but to build more housing supply. Your idea would disincentive building housing because it can’t be rented unless you’re in that special 5%.
Edit: Guaranteed everyone downvoting me has never owned a property and has not a clue what the stakes are.
God, I want to become a mayor or governor or something so I can push a rule through that says only 5% of single-family properties in any jurisdiction are allowed to be rentals, and landlords have to purchase what amounts to “tokens” from the city that are priced inverse proportionally to the ratio of tenant income to rent to be able to keep the rental. Also, wage discrimination is not allowed. If a potential tenant comes forward with proof, the landleech has to prove that they did not discriminate or they will not be allowed to purchase tokens the next year.
Idk, something. Some limitations on the number that any individual can hold in a city and punish them for overcharging.
There’s something to this. Sounds like taxi medallions.
I would settle for a law requiring owners of rental properties to be residents of the same state so they can be properly hauled into court when they break laws.
I’ve seriously been considering checking out what it would take to build homes and just make a company that only builds starter homes that can’t be sold to corporations. Fuck this system running out of control… Rent through the roof and no housing for the poor/lower middle class…
I absofuckinglutley do not in the slightest bit care about being rich, if the company could survive and support a “normal” life for me that would be more than enough.
It’s absolutely absurd that we allow the market to run rampant like this and just shrug it off. “Housing crisis? I don’t see one, we’re selling large houses like hot cakes! Most well over asking price!”
So something like a for (ethical) profit Habitat for Humanity? I have had a similar fantasy, start companies in each of the major problem sectors that operate openly and honestly only slightly above solvency and offer quality at good prices just to drive the greedy fucks out of business, then I just stay there. I don’t take advantage of the monopoly, I just live as I have been. I envision putting the actual material and labor cost of each product on the packaging in plain English. Kinda like a dietary and ingredients info table for a television. Don’t put in spyware, don’t put in random hidden cameras behind a screen, don’t take permissions on devices so I can listen in on people. Do a bank that micro-lends at a 1% markup from the interest rates on my savings accounts. Make everything repairable and put a wiring schematic on the inside of the case if it is a large enough unit. Etc. You know, be ethical in the way I treat my employees and customers. I know, radical concept. I guess that is just the effect of having a math degree, I’m used to radical concepts.
No renting at all? Why buy a home then? You’re just setting yourself up to become trapped in a bad situation. If you don’t have the flexibility to rent out your property when you get a new job somewhere else, or lose your job and can’t cover the mortgage, then you’ll either be foreclosed on or forced to sell possibly at a loss. Remember, when you buy a property, you are immediately under water due to selling costs of 6-8% of the property’s value.
Let’s picture this scenario:
If renting isn’t an option, this rule would create a lot of problems for people. The solution isn’t to regulate what people do with their own property more, but to build more housing supply. Your idea would disincentive building housing because it can’t be rented unless you’re in that special 5%.
Edit: Guaranteed everyone downvoting me has never owned a property and has not a clue what the stakes are.