1072
Fuck BlackRock
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
1072 points (100.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
2405 readers
480 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m sure when we build more properties Blackrock won’t continue to buy them as well as the 1/3 they already own in my city. Maybe they don’t have enough money to invest in more properties? Or maybe more housing will drive property values down enough so they’re not a good investment for blackrock anymore? What exactly is the success outcome you envision without banning investment properties?
Exactly that. Pretending that zoning restricting the supply isn't the problem plays right into the investors hands, because the supply shortage is what juices their investment returns!!!
And by the way: sure, fine, we could ban institutional investors from owning housing -- whatever, I literally do not care. What actually matters is the fact that even with them gone, if the zoning doesn't change we will still have all of the same problems because everyone will still be wanting to cram themselves into cities and the law will still be preventing the housing from accommodating them all. The unmet demand will continue to make prices skyrocket even if every bidder is a would-be owner-occupant, and everyone else will be forced out and have to commute back in, with all the negative consequences in terms of traffic, pollution, obesity, etc. that entails.
So you think we can build enough housing to drive housing down so much that it’s no longer useful as an investment therefore it doesn’t matter if we’re competing with companies on the market?
Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's worth a try! And even if it fails to do that, we would have accidentally built nicer places to live anyway -- the horror!
Too bad the authoritarian NIMBY temporarily-embarrassed landlords infesting this thread are too enraged at the idea to even allow it to be considered.
(Also, I added to my previous comment after you replied. Might help answer your question.)
Zoning and NIMBYs are definitely a problem but I think inequality is the main problem here, the bank will always take the best deal and we will never be a better deal to them.
Focusing on zoning without banning multi-property ownership or institutional investment properties might put more people in rental housing units (often owned by institutional investors), but it doesn’t help break up increasingly concentrated property ownership
WTF do you think zoning is for?! It is intentionally, comprehensively, fractally racist and classist, and has been, by design, since its inception!
Quick history lesson:
First, there was de-jure housing segregation. That eventually got struck down by the courts (Buchanan v. Warley, 1917).
Next, racists responded by making racially-restrictive "Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions" (CC&Rs). Eventually, those were ruled unenforceable too (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948), although they did evolve into modern HOAs that still often act discriminatorily using some excuse other than race as a fig leaf.
Finally, racists came up with zoning density restrictions: if they couldn't keep black people out because they were black, at least they could try to keep them out by mandating a large minimum lot size and hoping they were too poor to afford it. (And it would keep the white trash out, too, so another silver lining there from their perspective.)
There's a reason why all of these laws about single-family zoning (as opposed to other zoning laws about noxious land uses like paper mills and other manufacturing, which came a lot earlier) started popping up after 1948.
So yeah, that's where we're at. That's why single-family zoning with large minimum lot sizes is a thing in this country. Anybody trying to make excuses otherwise is being ahistorical.
I already said I agree about zoning I just disagree that zoning solves the problem without also shoring up institutional investors.
I’m aware of zoning and housing discrimination.
I get the sense that you’re arguing from the perspective of someone who has been traumatized from arguing with so many NIMBYs, but this thread probably has few to none of those people.
That part you're probably right about!
Maybe, but you might be surprised at how much NIMBYism transcends the political spectrum. I live in one of the most progressive (not "liberal;" genuinely progressive) parts of my city and we've still got a bunch of them whining in zoning meetings etc.