869
oxymoron rule (lemmy.cafe)
submitted 1 month ago by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/onehundredninetysix
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 250 points 1 month ago

Gotta read between the lines.

They won't be sellable... AT A PROFIT. They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.

You get to escape from this exploitation with the ill-gotten rent-profits you've already got and your heads still attached to your bodies... this is already the compromise. Take the win.

[-] BadJojo 74 points 1 month ago

They might not be sellable at "break even". A lot of people bought places to short-term rent on places like Airbnb. The prices might be extra inflated because of that revenue generation. Remove the ability to make a profit and the value crashes. Suddenly they cannot sell it for what they owe and it doesn't make enough to cover the mortgage.

My guess is that a lot of these mom and pop landlords will lose or sell their properties and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap.. Never lose faith in the system's incomparable ability to fuck over the common people.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

People who wanted to literally abuse the system (and the people in it) will get fucked up by a new system. So sad.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Did you read the whole post? Their point is it could make it even worse in the end.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Bahnd@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Investments carry risk, and when you invest in leaches, expect people to have little sympathy when the endevor fails.

[-] mormund@feddit.org 21 points 1 month ago

If you're investing to make highly leveraged profit off of a concept in a legal grey area, you're are not some "mom and pop" land lord. If that comes to pass they messed up their risk management because of greed.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago

and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap…

If that happens then it was a badly implemented policy to begin with.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Taldan@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

The fundamental issue is that people and corporations are buying himes for the sole purpose of profiting off them

It'll suck for some people, but it's a necessary part of making housing affordable again. Housing needs to be a place for someone to live, not an investment that always gets more expensive

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] germanatlas 127 points 1 month ago

Reminds me of when the former German gov tried to enforce heat pumps for heater replacements to phase out gas heaters.

Someone wrote their experience with a homeowner meeting in a small city to discuss that topic and at some point a man complained that doesn’t know if he could afford to replace gas heaters with heat pumps in all 36 of his houses…

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 60 points 1 month ago

awww the poor babies

[-] ProvableGecko@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

This would be funny to read in a political satire novel or something if we weren't living in it.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 118 points 1 month ago

"We invented a relatable class of people to discredit an actually leftish politician"

I feel like this isn't a new trick.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TomMasz@lemmy.world 95 points 1 month ago

It warms my heart to see all the people scared shitless by this guy.

[-] hypnicjerk@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago

i haven't looked too closely into his history or policy but i can tell he's the real mfing deal based on the fact that the times and post both absolutely hate his guts

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 86 points 1 month ago

Obviously "unsellable properties" here means "property that won't keep appreciating at insane rates".

[-] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 75 points 1 month ago

I was ALL IN on Mamdani until I read THIS! CANT we just think of the RICH LANDLORDS PLEASE! THOSE are the Only Ones who Matter! I'll GLADLY pay DOUBLE the Rent just to make Sure my Mom And Pop Landlord with 30 Buildings in NYC can stay Afloat and I Expect ALL Mamdani Supporters to do the Same! This is EYE OPENING!

[-] foggianism@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Giving everyone affordable housing would be socialism! Bailing out corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars every decade or so is not socialism, though. That would be straight up communism, but pssst

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

If my landlord has to miss one trip in his giant RV I will just bawl my eyes out.

Poor guy.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 71 points 1 month ago

And are those mom and pop landlords in the room with us now?

[-] Taldan@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago

If your promary concern when buying a hime is selling it, your housing market is fundamentally broken

Landlords can still make a profit offering a service (rental profit) without needing the underlying asset to perpetually appreciate in value. Japan makes it work

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 55 points 1 month ago

"The feudal overlords are humans just like you and I."

[-] 18107@aussie.zone 49 points 1 month ago

If you're renting a property, it is not unsellable. I'm sure someone will be happy to buy it for $1.

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago

Mom and pop landlord? Is that the US version of a Baronet or Knight?

[-] troybot@midwest.social 20 points 1 month ago

The feudal system is where the term landlord originated, so kind of yeah

[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 month ago

While I get what the writer was trying to say:

A) That was one of the worst terms they could have used.

B) Even small operations are keeping rent high and renters counting pennies.

So fuck em anyway.

[-] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

"Waaaaa I wanted all the potential profits and none of the risk!"

[-] TotallynotJessica 36 points 1 month ago

It's funny how the system of owning extra properties to rent out as part of a person's retirement is so unreachable for current generations that they don't even really know about it. Being able to own things so you didn't have to work when you were old used to be how the system convinced people to buy into it.

Now that this is now longer feasible for almost anyone, there's little reason for people to feel the system is worth upholding. That's what kept support for capitalism so strong after guilded age; a middle class supported by generous housing policies and strong unions. As such a reality becomes distant memory, people are more willing to reject capitalism and liberalism than every before.

[-] fodor@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 month ago

It's important to bring in the longer history. Before large numbers of Americans were reliant on rising housing prices, there existed these things called pension plans, which would pay out from when you retired until when you died, and you could live on that money. But the capitalists didn't like that, because they didn't want to pay people for doing nothing over the last few decades of their lives. So then we got the current system, which has people speculating on property and throwing money into IRAs. In other words, we had a system with guaranteed benefits and we replaced that with one based on gambling and the ridiculous belief that the value of property would always outpace inflation. And this all happened in our parents lifetimes, or in our grandparents lifetimes, depending how old you are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 31 points 1 month ago

What if he goes after the Mom & Pop Billionaires and Mom & Pop corporations next?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 month ago

love the plural properties

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 month ago

There are probably landlords who own only 2 properties, and who are living frugally in a smaller one while renting out a bigger one. I doubt there are many, but in a city of 25 million, there are probably a few. But, this idea that a property in NYC will be "unsellable" is a bit absurd.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I encourage all frugal parasites in NYC to go ahead and panic sell their multimillion dollar properties and move to the red states.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] wizzor@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 month ago

I'd like to hear how many % of NY rental properties are owned by landlords with a net worth below 1M$...?

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

Zillow has the average home price in NYC as ~800,000. So unless they also live in the rental probably near 0%.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BigBenis@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Won't anybody stand up for the ~~leeches~~ landlords??

[-] MangoPenguin@piefed.social 26 points 1 month ago

Housing is never 'unsellable', the price is just too high.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

It's really easy for individual homeowners to end up with unsellable properties. It happened at a massive scale after the late 2000s housing crash. All that has to happen is that the price declines to the point that your mortgage balance + transaction costs are now worth more than the home's value. If you're in that situation, unless you have the tens of thousands in cash needed to make up the difference, you're trapped in your home. You could mail the bank the keys and default on the mortgage, but that wrecks your credit and the bank will keep tacking on fees, charging you for maintenance, etc. Your choice is either to stay in the home or declare bankruptcy. Selling isn't a choice you actually have.

[-] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 month ago

Mom and Pop NYC landlords. I immediately want to balk at this statement but then I remembered two things. Firstly I remember "How to with Jon Wilson". He made an episode about buying the house from his landlord and that the only way to pay for it was to turn it into a rental property. His landlord was an old lady who wanted to move out.

Secondly, I remember meeting a couple who sold a brownstone before the pandemic, moved to Montclair NJ, and then purchased a home and turned their second floor into an apartment.

Do mom and pop landlords exist? Yes. Are they opportunistic? I don't think those single family homes should be allowed to be turned into apartments. I've seen some pretty heinous abuses of some people essentially turning a closet and a hallway into a "studio".

Maybe "Mom and Pop" landlords shouldn't exist.

[-] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

Maybe private landlords shouldn't exist.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago

"mom and pop" landlords should literally be a mom and pop, renting to their kid before they can afford their own place.

[-] RedSnt@feddit.dk 17 points 1 month ago

Think of the mom and pops that suddenly can't make a parasitic living off of leeching money from their tenants?

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

mom-and-pop parasites fear promising antiparasitic

[-] elbiter@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

This is what fascist media does: they bullshit you to death.

[-] Maxxie@piefed.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 month ago

here's an idea:

sell it

[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 14 points 1 month ago

I mean it's still a democracy. Just don't vote for him, if you don't like him?

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 21 points 1 month ago

or we could slander him with red scare tactics and racism

[-] rayyy@piefed.social 13 points 1 month ago

Contrived outrage is insanely standard but it still works on the dotards.

[-] ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

Shouldn’t even be a business.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
869 points (100.0% liked)

196

4560 readers
1922 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS