212
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 01 Apr 2024
212 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44128 readers
420 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Why do you disagree with this, out of curiosity? Having rental properties available is necessary. Not everyone can buy a home (not even taking the monetary reasons into account - think students, people on temporary work assignments, people who are in the country on a non-permanent visa, etc. - there's plenty of reasons why someone might want to rent even if they had the money to buy.) If your grandpa is taking care of the property and his tenants, and is charging a reasonable price, what's the problem?
If the owner is on top of maintenance and home improvements and all that, and the difference between the mortgage and what they're charging isn't extreme, I'd argue that this isn't necessarily true. If the mortgage is $1000/mo and someone is charging $3000/mo in rent, that's excessive, but charging $1300 rent on a property with a $1000/mo mortgage isn't unreasonable. Again, see the above reasons for why someone might choose to rent who had the means to buy.
It's OK to expect a return on an investment, even if that investment is property. It's not OK to take advantage of artificial scarcity to bleed people dry who have no other option, and to cut every corner that it's possible to cut while doing so. That's the distinction.
I take issue with the entire concept of renting, from the very core. A landlord is a middle-man between the person living in a building, and ownership of said building. The landlord having to to the maintenance doesn't make living in a rental a better experience, it just means more dealing with a middle man any time you need something fixed. It would be pretty nice if I could just call a plumber when my toilet has issues instead of hoping that the leasing office actually sends a repair-man this time. It's not fun having to pick up mail at the post office for ten months because the leasing office and the post office are arguing back and forth over who's responsible for fixing the apartment mailboxes after they were vandalized. Rentals will charge you money every month for a pool you don't want or use even though it's closed 9 months of the year. All renting has ever meant for me, has been a complete lack of control of what I'm allowed to do in my living space, and a constant fear of eviction should something go wrong, and landlords that do everything they can to never repair anything, or maintain the property at all. But onto the individuals that rent out a house or two, they still aren't adding value to living in a rental. All they do is sit in the middle and collect that extra cash on top. It's not that they're not doing any work at all, but being a landlord is not a job, and it's not doing the people living in that space any favors. People can't afford to buy because companies like blackrock are buying up all the property to make rentals, and upcharging all of the property. I'm not saying, either, that there shouldn't be options for temporary living, but our current rental model is so very clearly not it. Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent month buy month? My 700 square foot apartment is over $3,000 on that plan.
So, who would people who only need to temporarily rent go through? A business instead of an iindividual? How is that better?
Public/gvt housing.
I think you're using your bad experience as a template. I have a friend who prefers renting because he doesn't have to deal with any repairs or damage. He just calls the property manager. I guess if they are unresponsive he just moves.
Home ownership just isn't for everyone. If you owned the place you live in you would have had to come up with a larger down payment, qualify for a mortgage, handle every repair yourself and when you wanted/needed to move, sell the house, making repairs before doing so. Plus you'd be at the mercy of your neighbors for your property value to stay up, so you don't lose money. Don't even get me started on HOAs. Home ownership simply isn't for everybody. If you're landlord was more responsive and the rent was more affordable it probably wouldn't be so bad. And that's a different problem than the existence of landlords. It's really more of a BAD landlord problem, I think.
No it's just stupid. With those $300 dollars difference a landlord would need to cover insurance, property taxes, regular maintenance like replacing roof every 30 years, unplanned maintenance like a pipe bursts or aircon breaks. On top of that someone needs to act as the property manager/handyman so either the landlord takes that phone call on a Friday evening for the pipe that is gushing, or is paying someone to do that.
Tenant moves somewhere else and the place is empty for a couple of weeks, no income.
Oh and when you are done with all the above, depending on the country, those $300 count as income and get taxed (rightly so) so it's not really $300.
BTW I don't like landlords, I am not one. I rented most of my life until recently as a choice, been able to move to a new city or country at the drop of a hat. Haven't had to do maintenance and I'm only learning that now. Of course I paid for someone else doing all those things, and taking all the risks for me.
But lemmy users seem to have a thing for over simplifying things and decide what is and isn't excessive based on somethig that comes out of their ass. $300 dollars in this case.
These are included in mortgage payments. They go into an escrow account and are paid by the mortgage lender.
Yes, that is part of owning property. Rent shouldn't necessarily cover the mortgage plus all costs associated with owning the property. The property owner might be taking a loss during the period when they have a mortgage, but they have a property that's probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, so they're coming out considerably ahead. When you get people who feel they're entitled to have all costs + the mortgage covered + be able to live on the profits in addition, that's when you get shitty serial landlords who don't ever meet or talk to their tenants.