HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » America without Landlords...

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:34 PM

America without Landlords: A more in-depth discussion.

In an earlier post, I raised the general theoretical question of what would happen if owners of real estate could only buy or sell (or use it themselves) rather than renting out and being landlords. The fact of how horrifyingly one-sided, exploitive, and artificially price-inflated tenant/landlord business relationships tend to be is painfully obvious, and the massive power imbalance between tenants and landlords (even in areas with relatively strong tenant activism) is something our society has yet to address on a fundamental level.

So I would like to summarize the main objections that have been raised to banning landlordism in the very large number of comments the original post received. Although I answered a number of them, they were repeated so often that it became a chore to answer the same objections over and over, so here is a summary that everyone can consult and comment further on:

1. Big Gubmint!

Don't give a shit. I'm a liberal progressive, and I believe the government's job is to manage the economy for the benefit of society as a whole - which is what it either has been doing or supposed to have been doing since 1933.

If you are against the basic concept of the government regulating business, your opinions are beyond the scope of the topic, and completely outside my interest. If you're against the objective of the idea (greater wealth equality through government policy), then your opinion of whether the idea achieves that objective obviously involves a conflict of interest.

2. Would harm renters.

As explained in the original post, if the only two ways for profit-driven owners to make a profit are using the locations themselves or selling, most would find it more convenient to sell. This would reduce the market price of the real estate considerably, stabilizing only after the property has distributed widely enough that it's primarily being used by the owners (whether for habitation or business) rather than by very wealthy individuals or corporations whose sole function is to passively own and extort rent from users. With a drastically reduced price, far more people who were once forced to rent could afford to buy.

For the rest, we can very easily imagine any number of arrangements whereby groups pool resources, or else laws are changed to allow smaller increments of purchase. But these are details that should be left to specific legislation, and are not realistic objections to the fundamental concept of eliminating rental arrangements. The fact is that you can nitpick and use "Yeah, well, what about such-and-such a special case?!" arguments against laws that already exist and already work just fine.

But here's the most crucial fact: The status quo grievously harms renters. The very existence of the renter/landlord business arrangement - which is typically not voluntary on the part of the renter, but extorted by their circumstances and the market control exerted by current owners - harms renters. The status quo hurts renters, and is bleeding them dry. Bleeding the entire American middle class dry. The problem is vast and drastic, and here is one possible element of a solution to it.

You can throw in just about any mitigation to specific legislation to deal with timing, gradualism, increments, and other fine policy details, but fundamentally you cannot show why such a system - once fully implemented, with rational mechanisms put in place to address obvious concerns - is a bad idea. Objections become circular, saying that we cannot change because everything is already built around the current system, forgetting that the current system wasn't always the current system either. We have choices to make, and a fact to confront that the status quo is deeply harming us.


3. Would harm current homeowners.

There are a vast panoply of methods we can envision in legislation to deal with that - grandfather clauses, tax credit mitigations of losses, etc. This is, again, a question for specific legislation and not the fundamental idea. Because once the system is in place, and all the costs of transition are dealt with one way or another, there would be far more homeowners (although some would merely own apartments or even single rooms), keeping far more of their income because it's not being extorted by landlords. That is a good end in itself to seek, so the question is merely can legislation be designed that transitions to that without wreaking havoc?

The answer is obviously yes, if you believe in FDR-style liberal progressive democracy. The changes his administration wrought were far more drastic than this one, since this only concerns one element of one industry, and the parasitic speculative financial organizations that use it to engage in stock market fraud. So, if we are not so brainwashed by decades of conservative dogma into thinking a government can't handle something like this, what's the problem other than fear of change?

4. Would harm local tax revenues based on property value.

People buy property based on their ability to buy it, and that doesn't change just because prices fall. Usually they will buy exactly what they can afford, and if prices fall, they can afford a bigger house. But the total value of the house that person or family buys is the same because their resources to buy it are the same, so they pay the same in property taxes that they did before.

It's fair to say that the money would move around geographically, but that already happens: Some neighborhoods go down, some rise up. Some are blighted, some are gentrified, some cruise along just fine. All economic change does that. And if the argument against a positive change - an increase in general prosperity - is that it disrupts some local economies, that's a completely moot objection. Disruption caused by increasing prosperity is a good problem to have, and one that solves itself by people's ability to contribute to their communities and attract or start businesses increasing.

There is also the fact that people typically take better care of property when it's their own, and communities in general when they feel invested rather than feeling like a second-class citizen because they're not a land-owner.

This country started out being only of, by, and for white land-owning males. We've made a lot of progress on the white and male parts of that exclusionary legacy, but people who don't own real estate are still treated like peasants, extorted, and ignored by politicians. It's time to change that.

113 replies, 6853 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply America without Landlords: A more in-depth discussion. (Original post)
True Blue Door Aug 2015 OP
X_Digger Aug 2015 #1
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #3
X_Digger Aug 2015 #4
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #7
X_Digger Aug 2015 #20
leftynyc Aug 2015 #99
zappaman Aug 2015 #44
hill2016 Aug 2015 #2
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #6
hill2016 Aug 2015 #82
Throd Aug 2015 #5
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #12
Throd Aug 2015 #16
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #36
Throd Aug 2015 #40
zappaman Aug 2015 #45
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #47
Throd Aug 2015 #50
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #54
Throd Aug 2015 #62
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #69
Hekate Aug 2015 #113
Positrons Aug 2015 #93
WillowTree Aug 2015 #89
mythology Aug 2015 #8
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #13
mythology Aug 2015 #60
hack89 Aug 2015 #9
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #14
hack89 Aug 2015 #28
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #34
hack89 Aug 2015 #51
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #57
hack89 Aug 2015 #59
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #64
hack89 Aug 2015 #66
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #71
whatthehey Aug 2015 #107
yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #74
Codeine Aug 2015 #75
yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #77
lancer78 Aug 2015 #79
snagglepuss Aug 2015 #70
hack89 Aug 2015 #97
snagglepuss Aug 2015 #104
hack89 Aug 2015 #109
whatthehey Aug 2015 #106
Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #10
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #17
Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #21
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #27
Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #46
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #67
X_Digger Aug 2015 #72
leftynyc Aug 2015 #100
yeoman6987 Aug 2015 #76
cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #11
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #18
cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #22
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #29
daredtowork Aug 2015 #15
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #23
daredtowork Aug 2015 #31
XRubicon Aug 2015 #19
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #24
XRubicon Aug 2015 #25
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #30
FLPanhandle Aug 2015 #33
XRubicon Aug 2015 #42
GitRDun Aug 2015 #26
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #32
GitRDun Aug 2015 #35
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #38
GitRDun Aug 2015 #41
Yo_Mama Aug 2015 #37
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #43
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2015 #90
TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #112
Dr. Strange Aug 2015 #39
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #49
Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #48
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #52
Ace Rothstein Aug 2015 #95
Hekate Aug 2015 #53
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #58
JDPriestly Aug 2015 #55
rgbecker Aug 2015 #56
True Blue Door Aug 2015 #63
Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #61
tammywammy Aug 2015 #65
Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #68
lancer78 Aug 2015 #80
Codeine Aug 2015 #73
lancer78 Aug 2015 #81
Krytan11c Aug 2015 #83
lancer78 Aug 2015 #84
Krytan11c Aug 2015 #88
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #78
lonestarnot Aug 2015 #85
Krytan11c Aug 2015 #86
Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #87
TheKentuckian Aug 2015 #91
DrDan Aug 2015 #92
meaculpa2011 Aug 2015 #94
alarimer Aug 2015 #96
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #98
dumbcat Aug 2015 #101
Bluenorthwest Aug 2015 #102
Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #110
Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #103
meaculpa2011 Aug 2015 #105
lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #108
WillowTree Aug 2015 #111

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:44 PM

1. So you got locked out of your own thread, and you want to start over, eh?

Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:58 PM

3. As I said, there were a vast number of repetitious comments raising the same objections.

I thought it would be worthwhile to unify them under a single thread. Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:59 PM

4. I said it over in the other thread. If you hadn't called someone a freeper, you could reply. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:07 PM

7. One more for the Ignore List. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:31 PM

20. Given your smug dismissal of real problems with your proposal, it doesn't surprise me..

.. that your other tactic is ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:29 AM

99. Your proposal was idiotic

 

You called another poster a freeper for not agreeing with you (and apparently got locked out of your own stupid thread) and now you're being totally dismissive of anyone who calls you out on your bullshit. Go ahead and put me on ignore. You have zero to add to anything anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:17 PM

44. !!!!

Now I get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 08:50 PM

2. you didn't address

 

two large problems

firstly lots of rich people are happy to buy up property without renting. many people can only afford to buy a place if they can rent it out. hence even more property will fall into the hands of the rich.

secondly even without considering the value of the land, the house has fixed costs that a buyer needs to cover (appliances, labor, building materials, finishings). if people can barely come up with rental security deposits, how are they going to come up with enough cash for a whole house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:05 PM

6. I don't think that's the case.

firstly lots of rich people are happy to buy up property without renting.[/quote]

Because they still benefit from the asset appreciation created by others renting and speculating. If real estate were more commoditized, there is simply no business incentive to hold on to land you don't use productively. I'm sure some rich people would own just to own, like cars or whatever, but not nearly to the extent of the present case.

many people can only afford to buy a place if they can rent it out.


Right now. Remember, the prices would decline dramatically. And we're not only talking about houses, but also condos and apartments (and perhaps single rooms). Also remember that without having to pay extortionate rents, people who were once renters would keep a lot more of their income, even accounting for maintenance costs and taxes (landlords exact a substantial markup above these costs in rent).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:00 AM

82. do you really

 

think the rich need a business reason to own property?

if there's a fire sale on real estate, who do you think will be scooping up everything in sight?

also, how much can prcies go down? at the end of the day, someone neds to pay for the capitalized costs of building a house. how do people come up with that sum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:00 PM

5. This would just create a giant black market for rentals.

Leaving renters with even less legal protections.

I reject the foundation of your premise that landlords are inherently extortive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:16 PM

12. Black markets are only born when a need isn't met.

How would highly commoditized, small-increment real estate sales (with all sorts of professional services to handle the details) fail to meet the same needs as renting minus the huge inflationary pressures of speculation and landlordism?

I reject the foundation of your premise that landlords are inherently extortive.


They can choose to charge lower rents than they could get away with charging, but why should ordinary people depend on the charitable nature of landowners to have affordable housing? It doesn't happen enough to meaningfully change the reality of life as a renter. The market is badly distorted by all the middle-men, and prices hugely inflated. Cost of living for renters just keep going up and up while the profits of the owners do likewise.

Something has to give.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:27 PM

16. You sound like Nicolas Maduro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:04 PM

36. You sound like ad hominem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #36)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:10 PM

40. No, you're supposed to accuse me of being a CIA stooge.

Face it. Your idea is a turd, no matter how much gold spray paint you apply to it. Affordable housing is indeed an issue which must be addressed, but I don't see your "solution" as workable or constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:17 PM

45. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:19 PM

47. Then offer actual explanations of your objections instead of laughable Red-baiting.

I shouldn't have to demand that - it's basic rules of behavior in society.

When you have an objection, you state the objection, not say "Lolwut ur a Commie."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #47)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:26 PM

50. It's the same 3:00 am bong-addled ramblings I remember during art school in the early 90's.

It's just not as awesome as you think it is.

Some ideas are just so plainly dumb that they don't deserve a detailed analysis of why they are so plainly dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #50)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:41 PM

54. Thanks for the insulting thought-terminating cliches, but I'm only interested in real comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #54)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:00 PM

62. No, you're only interested in people who agree with this tripe.

Ya know, True Blue Door, I have read your postings since you have arrived here and am always impressed with your intellect and writing skills. On the flip-side, I find your solutions to be not well grounded in real world consequences as they often prescribe a somewhat authoritarian remedy that is worse than the affliction. Having said that, I look forward to your next OP.

Have a good evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #62)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:20 PM

69. Agreement is not required, only justification of your position, which you've failed to give.

And stating that my views run toward authoritarianism is outright doublespeak that's 180 degrees off the plane of reality.

Describing democratization of something as authoritarian is freaking Orwellian. More people free to live their lives as they choose, more prosperous, less under the thumb of an ever-diminishing number of increasingly powerful plutocrats...somehow that strikes you as authoritarian.

I find that bizarre, to say the least.

Anyway, you have a good evening too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #50)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 05:29 PM

113. Spot on. College sophomores are all-wise, aren't they?

Then they grow up. Or at least most of them do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #40)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 07:38 AM

93. Don't forget ethical...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 06:00 AM

89. "They can choose to charge lower rents than they could get away with charging......." Really?

How does that work? Because, if they charge rent in any amount, that would make them landlords and landlords, in the world you live in, have been outlawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:12 PM

8. Posting this twice doesn't make it less silly

 

This is a clearly nonsensical proposal. The reason people gave you the same objections is that those objections fundamentally undermine the basic premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:17 PM

13. The OP argues otherwise, and your failure to answer any of its points concedes as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:50 PM

60. It certainly doesn't argue persuasively

 

I already told you why this was a silly impractical idea. You opt to ignore it. That doesn't make me wrong or your point any less invalid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:13 PM

9. Let me guess - you can't afford a mortgage

And you resent the hell out of people more fortunate than you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:18 PM

14. Accusing progressives of being envious of the rich. Never heard that one before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:48 PM

28. My mother is a landlord. She is not rich

She and my dad were frugal with their money and invested in a couple of rental properties to live off of in retirement.

You want to take that away from her. That is not progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:57 PM

34. Point 3 deals with this. There are vast numbers of quite obvious ways that legislation

could protect ordinary people's investments made before the transition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #34)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:27 PM

51. But why should she have to give it up?

It's her property. She is doing no harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:42 PM

57. The system is harmful.

Is it a valid argument against changing a harmful system because you can come up with anecdotes of people who use it non-harmfully?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #57)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:46 PM

59. No it is not

That is what is puzzling about your obsession - you have yet to demonstrate that an actual problem exists. At least a problem of such magnitude to require such a drastic solution. That fact that no one agrees with you should tell you something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:05 PM

64. Let me get this straight: You're denying that rents have increased while wages have not?

You're denying that landlords massively exploit tenants?

You're denying that renting is ultimately more expensive than buying, and represents a net upward wealth transfer?

Because nobody would be denying that here if those facts weren't being stated in support of this particular idea.

Does acknowledging that such drastic change is necessary just bum people out and make them not want to think about it or something, and make some engage in ridiculous denial? Like with climate change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #64)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:13 PM

66. All those years I rented I was not exploited

It was a conscious choice as part of a realistic assessment of my financial situation and local housing prices. The land lord was reasonable. When the time was right I bought a house.

People are not children. They can make their own choices without your help. Many want to rent. I say let them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:27 PM

71. I'm very happy that your life experiences have gone smoothly.

But that's not a basis for forming general policy. And talking about people not being children is just more of that "Big Gubmint! Big Gubmint!" type reaction I dealt with in Point 1 of the OP.

People are indeed not children, so we can recognize when we're being screwed and act intelligently to correct it. Renters are at the very tail-end of a Human Centipede of thieving corporations, and their "choice" is between accepting the terms they're offered or leaving the entire region and any associated opportunities. That is literally the deal presented to commoners forced to live under the rule of nobles in the Middle Ages: Work for me on my terms or get the fuck out and starve!

Ordinary people today live under very similar conditions. They don't (and can't) work for themselves, they work for their landlords and their health insurance companies. We've made a little dent in the latter, but we haven't done much about the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #71)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:33 AM

107. Your history is off too

Feudalism meant peasants were locked into the area and were not allowed to leave for lower cost areas. You have that freedom. Perfectly liveable 1000 sq ft 2br single family homes with all amenities, city utilities and 7000 sq ft yards in safe neighborhoods can be bought for $50k here, with mortgage rates with average credit making that cost a bit over $300 PITI. Unemployment is under the national average so opportunities are fine. Why rent at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #64)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:41 PM

74. I think renting is cheaper.

 

I have done both and trust me when I say I put out more money owning. When I was renting, it was great and easy....one check a month and done. Now the check is bigger but now I have to ensure upkeep which is expensive as anything. Sometimes I yearn for my renting days. It is sure easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #74)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:46 PM

75. Lost my home after a seperation

 

that occurred just as the real estate market imploded. Couldn't find a buyer before foreclosure.

Honestly, one of the best things that ever happened to me. Renting just works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #75)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:48 PM

77. So sorry to hear that, but so glad things are well now

 

I don't get the OP's thought process at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #64)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 12:05 AM

79. I will deny that renting is more expensive then buying.

 

Where I live a 3 BR 2 BA house rents for $800 per month. That includes everything. A 30 year mortgage on the same place is $709 a month. The mortgage does NOT include property tax, maintenance, lawn care or insurance on the home. Add all those and it is another $200 a month easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:21 PM

70. The problem is that in cities where there is high demand for rentals

rents soar and almost all income goes to rent which impacts the local economy and increases homelessness and increases the gap between rich and poor. I can speak from experience.

Not mention in the OP but also detrimental to quality of life and the ability to get ahead, is the high rent for small businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #70)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:00 AM

97. That doesn't justify the OP's solution

there has to be a middle ground that doesn't destroy private property rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #97)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:07 AM

104. Do rent controls destroy property rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #104)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:48 AM

109. No. But the OP has nothing to do with rent controls. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #57)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:25 AM

106. How is it harmful to provide housing?

In the vast majority of the country, excepting constrained megalopolitan areas like NYC and the Bay Area, it is cheaper to buy than rent.

People who rent do so then because

a) they have bought into the bumff that this is less restrictive and more mobile (I've lived in 8 states with owned houses, and have never had a problem relocating efficiently. Certainly far less than a 12 mo lease would have caused), so renters by choice definitively willing to pay above mortgage prices (again with a few exceptions) for their perceived freedom and in some cases the laughable fantasy that they are not paying for maintenance repair or property taxes, which of course they are, just as part of monthly rent rather than in unpredictable chunks.

b) They are unable to secure a bank loan to get a mortgage. Renters by need. While there are always a few who if the median house price were 150k instead of 250k might qualify, most would still be left out of the market because banks don't want to be stiffed out of 150k any more than 250k, and people who cannot get loans are in that position almost universally because non-payment is a demonstrated probability.

So a wants to rent and b cannot get a mortgage and are unlikely to have enough cash to buy even at bargain basement prices. What are they supposed to do? Exactly how low do you imagine houses would drop? Unless it's within the cash range of the working class with poor credit, which is absurd on material costs alone, where do the b group live? What about the desire of the a group not to own?

Furthermore your property tax concept is laughable. Millions of people, me included, in fact likely the majority of all non starter-house buyers, buy a house on what they need/want not what they can just stretch to afford. My house cost, and is still worth, less than my annual income (I'm not spectacularly rich either, just live in a low cost area). I could easily buy four times the house. I don't want to. If I move to that 9th state and your plan is magically in place, I'll just buy the equivalent house at, say, half the price and pay half the property taxes. Good luck funding local schools and roads and services when the majority of home buyers do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:14 PM

10. What about people that wan to rent

 

An 18 year old in college, a temp assignment with a company.

Im a landlord. Ive replaced a roof last year for several thosand dollars. A lot of people can not afford it, or dont want the hastle.

Also, I buy a house, then rent it for around the same price as the mortgage and taxes. I make money when rents increase.

Somebody who can afford to pay rent can make a mortgage payment on that house, but maybe they dont want to own or maybe their credit is bad, which your dont seem to havr a solution for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:27 PM

17. Again, this is a question for the details of specific legislation.

I could just as easily ask "What about people that don't want to rent right now, but are forced to by the artificially inflated prices of real estate"? Do you have an answer for that in defense of the status quo?

If we already had the system I'm talking about and you were advocating changing it to the system we actually have, could you answer that objection? Could you explain why millions of people who could afford to buy should suddenly be priced completely out of the market and forced to pay rent that constantly increases, to fewer and fewer owners charging more and more just because they can?

The test of the question is which system, once implemented and the costs associated with transition amortized, best represents the interests of the general public. There is essentially no argument for the status quo, because it doesn't even stay the same level of awful: It continues getting worse and harming people more and more.

You may be a great landlord, but your personal generosity doesn't change the reality of the market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:32 PM

21. How can we have a discussion if your solution is to 'wait for the legislation'

 

So lets close this entire thread, and wait for the legislation then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:46 PM

27. We can have a discussion about possible aspects of legislation.

But what is unreasonable is to demand that I articulate a fully-formed bill to even concede that the basic concept is valid.

Think about it: Could you justify the current system if I turned it around and asked similar questions about it? If I bring up all the ways it fails people, creates poverty, etc., would you be able to explain in minute detail how current policy deals with those circumstances, or what sort of more cautious legislation would better deal with those problems?

The point is whether it is an economically superior circumstance, and if we have to delve into highly detailed special cases to find objections to a very general concept, that clearly suggests the concept is fundamentally sound and the objections are indeed a matter for legislation.

But if we concede that, then we need to say so explicitly, that this is a Good Idea, and that the objections raised to it would just be a matter of writing a good bill rather than a fundamental problem with the notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #27)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:18 PM

46. Ok, lets discuss one aspect

 

What about people that want to rent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #46)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:16 PM

67. Renting is a means to an end, and that end is better achieved in other ways under this scenario.

But if someone wants to give away their money to a rich person or a corporation as an end in itself, people are perfectly free to donate their money to the rich and call them "Mr. Landlord Sir" if they feel like it. The law wouldn't stop that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #67)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:31 PM

72. So fuck people that want to rent.. Okay. That'll fly.

College student? Let's fuck up your credit even more with a goddamned mortgage!

Think those student loans are a bitch? Well wait til you get a load of FORECLOSURE! WOO HOO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #67)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:38 AM

100. Who the fuck are you to decide that?

 

I LIKE renting - I write a check every month and when it's time to get work done, I call the landlord and get it done. My mom gave up her house when dad died because she didn't want to continue to maintain it so she rents also. I've been renting my apt for over 20 years and I've never even MET my landlord let alone call him or anyone else sir. What's the matter? Can't afford a mortgage? Got screwed by a crooked landlord so now the rest of us are fools for renting? Just hate the rich? Just what the fuck is your problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:47 PM

76. Did you miss 2008-2012?

 

Buying a house was cheap!!!!!! Actually it still is. If you can't buy a house now, how can you later when the market started rising again?

Also you mentioned paying the house off immediately. How can that happen? Even if you sell your house for 20K, very few have that liquid cash. Car loans are real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:15 PM

11. "The status quo grievously harms renters." Apparently, there was disagreement with that...

 

on the other thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #11)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:29 PM

18. Rents constantly increase while incomes don't.

This is one of the key vectors of wealth concentration in America, and if we're going to do something about it, we have to address this archaic vestige of the ancient world in our modern economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:33 PM

22. All you're doing is stating an opinion; I respect that. But in the end, ALL it is, is an opinion.

 

I would add that in your first attempt at this, plenty of people said they'd rather rent than own. You must think them stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #22)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:50 PM

29. It is not opinion that rents constantly increase while incomes don't.

And I'm sure some people right on the cusp of being able to buy prefer not to because of the enormous expense, but that doesn't mean their attitude would be the same at considerably lower prices and more streamlined processes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:19 PM

15. We need to End Real Estate as a Commodity Market - Redux

Redux:

The stock market has an SEC that regulates, steps in over major rises and falls, and punishes activities like rumor-mongering to create false markets. Why don't we have that to protect the rental market where people's shelter is literally dependent on the rents remaining stable rather than being blown up into speculation bubbles?

Also rents right now are being notoriously manipulated by factors outside the local community or even outside the country in "desirable" (for the purposes of investment funds) urban areas. Countries around the world with devalued currencies, crime rings, and corrupt government officials are investing in US real estate - and Janet Yellen is keeping interest rates low to encourage them to do so in hopes that it "drives" the economy (even if construction jobs are temporary, they look like "job growth" so we can fake some sort of economic recovery). California in particular dropped almost all support for developing low-income housing and decided to court these outside investors instead: local communities were undermined by absentee landlords speculating on the properties beneath them. Rents soared. Property owners had put laws in place long ago to "phase out" rent control, and now these laws worked in favor of real estate commodity brokers. Since these schmucks have all the money, they stuff political coffers, form local shadow governments, and ram lobbyists in the way of any attempt to stop their windfall-grab.

Landlordism isn't what needs to change: this country's workforce is mobile - people still need to be able to rent a place to stay.

What needs to change is the underlying concept that Real Estate that is being used for rental housing is a "hot commodity" for speculators.

Rental housing should be treated as a vended service. It should be highly regulated with a minimal profit structure. Landlords may "revolt" at first and claim no will rent, and perhaps that means there should be a competing public option for rental housing. But eventually the psychology will change, and some landlords who want to make stable, rather than windfall, money in that particular business will choose to provide that service. That will simply become the way rental housing is provided, take it or leave it. This will be like employers having to follow OSHA safety rules or having to pay minimum wage or like public utilities not being allowed to charge infinite prices just because everyone needs heat and electricity. Sure everyone WANTS to make windfall profits if they can, but they shouldn't be doing it at the expense of human shelter.

And if private landlords can't or won't do it that way, then we do need to develop enough building unit housing for those who need to rent. At that point people in nice houses have no right to complain about the tall buildings that have to be built right next to them. Younger, mobile workers need a place to stay. Elderly folk who wish to remain independent but who could never afford to own a home need a place to stay. Disabled people who have always been on a fixed income and who could never afford to buy a house, need a place to stay. Tough cookies: if this can't be vended through private sector houses, it will have to be via units in buildings developed expressly for the purpose. I'm not a fan of that outcome, but that's the obvious outcome.

Most of all these changes to the Real Estate market need to be ON DECK NOW. Congress brought the Planned Parenthood issue to a vote within a month. The housing crisis has been going on for a couple of years. Why does taking action on that need so much "process"? Having now seen how fast our government can act when it wants to, I would like to see the Federal government enact some commodities rules for housing used as rentals and put in place an SEC-like body to address those issues NOW. I'd like to see the State of California act just as quickly to overturn Costa-Hawkins and Ellis Act evictions so cities with rent control will have the tools they need to protect the rent controlled housing they have left from speculators while they wait for better regulatory tools to come down the pipe.

And I would like Janet Yellen to come out and admit that though her policies may enrich Wall Street and somehow "create jobs", the resulting housing bubble also does a lot of harm, and she has had no suggestions as what to do about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #15)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:37 PM

23. I would agree with stricter rental regulation as a stopgap measure, but...

The fact is that countries even with very strict rental regulation still have very rigid class disparities, and renters are still politically and economically weak compared to owners.

Such measures almost create a legal enshrinement of class distinctions, and for my money, a docile aristocracy is still not what a progressive democratic society should be aiming for. We should be aiming for democratization of real estate (and everything else, for that matter).

People should own the real estate they use, and use the real estate they own. There should be no daylight between ownership and usage.

If they want to let someone use their property for free as a philanthropist, great - at least then they're using it. But real estate should not be a speculative fulcrum used by casino gambler investors and quasi-farmer absentee landlords who own property from afar and milk tenants like cows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #23)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:53 PM

31. Without mobility people become serfs

Serfs might technically own their property but they end up trapped on a larger estate, working the estate owner's farm, and paying the prices at the company store. Renting allows people to remain agile, moving from place to place. While you are renting, you don't have to worry about maintenance of the property, taxes, or any other issues. You can focus on whatever you came there to do.

If there was a way we could remove landlordism but still give people hostels so they could easily move from place to place - and they could easily trade in houses when they had to move - then maybe your argument would start to work.

Labor has to remain mobile or people become serfs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:30 PM

19. What if only you could not rent...

If you are renting now you would immediately be thrown out on the street. If you owned but had a mortgage you would be given 1 day to pay off the mortgage or be thrown out on the street- because if you have a mortgage you are renting from the bank.

Discuss with yourself... I'm sure you will have hours of enjoyment and enlightenment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #19)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:38 PM

24. Please read the OP before commenting. Specifically Point 2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:41 PM

25. Sorry my bad, I forgot this is your made up world

Last edited Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I like mine better though. I could add that you are a movie star or something... would that help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #25)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:50 PM

30. And yet another one for the Ignore List. This is fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #30)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:55 PM

33. Go ahead and ignore me too

Because you can't defend a stupid idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #30)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:13 PM

42. and I offered to make you a movie star...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:43 PM

26. Again? Really? No thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #26)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 09:54 PM

32. Chiming in to say you have nothing to say is really unnecessary.

Just not commenting at all avoids wasting anyone's time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:02 PM

35. I said a lot in the other thread

Your OP was not well thought out the first time. THIS OP IS THE WASTE OF TIME.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:07 PM

38. Responding to your disruptive comments is the waste of time. Ignored. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:11 PM

41. In your case, I am quite pleased to be on the ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:06 PM

37. I just find this dumb. Having to buy an apartment to go to college is just nuts

And if you don't allow rentals, it's that or a tent, right?

Campground America doesn't make any sense to me.

Even if I had the money to buy and moved to a new area for a job, I wouldn't want to buy. First I would want to rent for six months or a year and then, when I knew the area and knew I was going to stay, I'd start looking for the place I really wanted, where I really wanted to live.

It's not quick to buy a place. A month, even if it's an all-cash deal. For most, two to three months.

A lot of rentals are needed. It is neither cheap nor quick to buy or sell RE, and there are times in life when everyone has to live somewhere and doesn't want or need to buy at that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:15 PM

43. This is another example of something trivially obvious language in legislation

could address, as mentioned in Point 2.

Moreover, the circumstances you're describing are all features of the status quo, and are not inherent facts of real estate. You seem to think I'm saying that current buying practices would be expanded, and I'm telling you they wouldn't even be the same kind of transaction most of the time because the price would be a lot lower, volume a lot greater, and the legislation introducing it could tailor systems to your sort of need.

But if you're saying you're just fine and dandy with the status quo, then you are lucky. A lot of people are not. They don't choose a system where they are bled dry - it's forced on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #43)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 06:03 AM

90. When people point out the practical problems, you call it 'trivially obvious' to fix

but you are unable to say what the trivially obvious fixes are, whether to:

the large amount of people who need accommodation on a short-term basis, because their circumstances change (family separation, new job, study, short-term work ...)

or people who don't have the money to purchase it outright (which can't go below the cost of building it - though you did claim, without evidence, that the whole construction industry is a conspiracy to artificially drive up building costs) (are you still, like your original post, going to ban people from borrowing to purchase their home?)

or owners who already have mortgages on homes the live in, which will go underwater.

And when DUers say that people should be allowed to enter into agreements with others to use their property in a mutually beneficial way - ie renting it - you say "but I don't like that". Have you wondered why there has never been a country anywhere in the world which has tried this? Some countries have banned private landlords, but they did it by nationalising the properties, so that they can actually continue to satisfy the need for accommodation without forcing everyone to become an asset-owning capitalist trader. Not everyone wants to invest money in something that can vary in value (and the idea of people buying smaller and smaller parts would be even more volatile - the price someone would be willing to pay for a unit that shares facilities with crappy neighbours that you can't force out, and that you can't afford to walk away from, could vary wildly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #43)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:13 PM

112. Prices are NOT going to be a lot lower

Already built houses are not going to sell for that much lower than houses that will be built tomorrow. And houses that will be built have fixed costs that can't be lowered.

Labor and materials costs add up. How are you going to lower the costs on the materials to build that house? That bathtub? The kitchen sink? The carpet? The windows. And on and on. Let's say you manage to skim off $20,000 in savings on a $200,000 house with your scheme. That's still not affordable to a lot of people!

The price is NOT going to go down as much as you think it will.

Furthermore, what do you plan to do about mortgages? Down payments?

Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:07 PM

39. I'm interested in the point hughee99 brought up.

What happens to hotels? What's to keep landlords from becoming a hotel? Are we outlawing hotels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr. Strange (Reply #39)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:26 PM

49. That is indeed an interesting question worth exploring.

Off the top of my head, the easiest answer would be that zoning and inherent expenses would deal with it: You can't run a hotel in a residential-zoned neighborhood, and the costs of running a hotel would make it impractical as a grey market replacement for renting.

Obviously it would be more complicated than that, but that's a good start to an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:23 PM

48. This thread is just as dumb the second time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Rothstein (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:32 PM

52. Pro-tip: It helps if you read it before commenting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #52)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:46 AM

95. Oh, I've read the proposal and I wish I didn't.

The value of all residential real estate in the US is over $25 trillion. You want to crash that. So everyone who has poured their life savings into their house is now fucked over in your proposal. It is literally one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:38 PM

53. Still twaddle. The "logic" holds up only inside your imaginary bubble, not the real world. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #53)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:44 PM

58. And this kind of objection is still empty, knee-jerk "heresy" accusations.

I would wonder how you'd have reacted to New Deal proposals before they were mentioned by someone in authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:41 PM

55. Many people prefer to rent.

Here are some of the reasons:

The renters are seeking a place to live but don't want to get stuck in a house they own because they hope to or plan to move.

The renters own a house somewhere which they are renting out, and are just seeking to rent a second house near their work.

The renters don't have the credit rating to buy.

The renters don't have the money to make a downpayment and fix up a house to move into.

The renters found a really reasonably priced place to rent that they could not afford to buy.

The renters are planning to get married and just renting until they get married and then move into a house they buy as a couple.

The renters don't want the hassle and cost of keeping up their own house, and upkeep on the rented property is the landlord's responsibility.

The renters are renting a condo in an area in which they could not afford to buy.

There are so many good reasons to rent, many more than I have listed.

We rented for years. We did not buy a house until we thought we were in a city in which we could and would stay for a long time. We have not regretted that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:42 PM

56. I've been a Landlord, renter and own home owner.

This is a great idea, True Blue. This progressive website can't even get behind it, so I'm thinking it is going no where. That said, it would make a great economics paper. Addressing the necessity of a huge mobile population of workers who would be looking to sell their possibly undesirable house and buy in a up coming area where the housing just doesn't exist would be an interesting starting point.

Thanks for airing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #56)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:02 PM

63. I've been here long enough to know this place has a mixture of viewpoints.

And a lot of the most vocal objections are clearly not even coming from the progressive spectrum, so I take the some of more poisonous reaction with a huge grain of salt (and antibiotics).

In fact, it's kind of encouraging seeing the virulence of the response - clearly the idea strikes a nerve. Some of it borders on the kind of stark raving terror you would hear from conservatives during the Cold War whenever anyone would propose a progressive reform. Every welfare program and tax increase was another step toward Stalinism.

It would be laughable, if not for...well, no, it really is laughable how they're reacting. You're correct the challenges are immense, but clearly some folks sense just how resonant an issue this could be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 10:57 PM

61. Maybe we could start by just limiting landlords.

 

So limit the number of units that one person can own.

Just like you know how we used to have laws capping the number of media outlets a company could own in a single city?

Like that. So we could say no landlord could own more than 100 rental units in a city. Or to be more aggressive we could make the number 20 or 5.

Also we can tax rental income to discourage it.

I agree with the philosophy side of what your saying. But this is a liberal web forum right, and you're giving a radical idea? And I agree personally.

So wanted to give these other reformist ideas that maybe some liberals could go along with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #61)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:12 PM

65. Rental income is taxed.n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #65)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:18 PM

68. Yeah. I mean like, more. To discourage it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #65)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 12:08 AM

80. Not for

 

Social Security or Medicare it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:41 PM

73. Just how low do you think prices would go?

 

Land is finite, building materials aren't free, and skilled construction labor doesn't come cheap. I think you overestimate the amount buy which home prices would fall. Poor-ass people (of which I am one) would find a mortgage (assuming one has credit less laughable than my own) no less onerous than rent.

Have you read any economic analysis or theory that would serve to back up your proposal? Has anyone run these numbers, ever? Have any credible economists seriously put forth such a plan?

And what does your idea accomplish that simple rent control legislation wouldn't? Is the notion of ownership that intrinsically important that it has to be forced on everyone?

Perhaps, then, you are merely philosophically opposed to the notion that a homeowner can profit via the collection of rent? Why not forcibly appropriate all housing and simply assign families and individuals homes, then? That seems, on the face of it, about as radical and utterly, impossibly unrealistic as your Antilandordism policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #73)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 12:09 AM

81. His original proposal

 

banned mortgages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #81)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:38 AM

83. What?

Who the hell has enough liquid assets to purchase a home? I sure as hell don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Krytan11c (Reply #83)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:42 AM

84. he thinks

 

Individual condos or apartments will be around 10,000. After all, borrowing money is just another form of renting and the bank is the landlord

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #84)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:47 AM

88. Maybe for him 10000 isn't a lot

But for me that's about 4 months salary without any other expenses. In other words unobtainable without a loan of some sort. I know you get this, too bad the op doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:55 PM

78. Actually I am thinking about investing heavily in camping tents, perhaps some of the homeless would

like to live in a tent when they can not afford to purchase a home or keep it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:43 AM

85. sure is a fucking racket in AZ. Landlord tenant act is shit. Renter doesn't have a chance.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:45 AM

86. On point #4

I don't think you understand how property taxes work. They are based on the assessed value of the property. If you cause property values to fall then taxes fall with them. Many municipalities are "growth locked" by surrounding cities. In these places no new houses will be built because they are at peak number of houses.
Also, why are you so sure that the rich are going to sell their assets right away or even fairly quickly. You assume that they will behave like the fictional homo economicus. In reality they will probably sit on their holdings, they can afford to, and wait for the fallout of your legislation to cause it to be reversed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 01:45 AM

87. I'm not suggesting this solution but it has been done before

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 06:53 AM

91. It would seem to be far less complex, plausibly unconstitutional, broadly disruptive,

and possibly likely to incite a civil war to just provide the homeless with homes.

You do that and the artificial scarcity would be taken out of the market and the rest would shake out and equalize but do so less dramatically and without a period of exaggerated homelessness with weird grandfathering that seems to either negate the point or robs a lot of people not particularly wealthy of their incomes or probably both and tax schemes to make the transition while abusing the Commerce clause so severely that you codify vassal status for what used to be citizens, suddenly if not wiping out certainly kneecapping a significant sector of the economy, and stifling mobility both literally and economically of most.

Hell, where do a huge swath live while the system fully impements and what happens if prices aren't as impacted as you project?

Keep it simple, make a natural market and odds are high that your concerns will all be addressed and if not there is a real safety net in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 07:24 AM

92. still a dumb idea - sounds like a commercial for the Chamber of Commerce

Force the long-term temp owners and long-term visitors into hotels. And when they lack cooking facilities, they can head to the local restaurants. I live in an area where thousands of Canadians make multi-month visits annually - what a boost to local business interests.

And think of the boost in hotel-room revenue with this new-found demand.

Yep - put that rental money into the hands of the business-folk.

Have you shared this idea on the other site? They will be thrilled with this new-found money-making opportunity.

And anyone who prefers to rent . . . tough. Buy or head to a hotel.

good heavens . . . what an absolutely non-thought-out idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:12 AM

94. Land-use regulations, even when serving a legitimate...

public interest, cannot deprive the land owner of viable economic benefit from their property.

It's that pesky Bill of Rights again.

We wonder why observers consider us kooks and crackpots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:56 AM

96. I rent because I don't want to mow lawns.

Or do basic maintenance. Let someone else do that shit. Owning property is just being tied to sheer drudgery on days off.

Bad enough I have to vacuum.

I do think we need better enforcement of housing standards. Cheap apartments are usually in terrible condition, often unsafe for human habitation because the owners care more about profit than they do about providing affordable housing.

And of course there is not enough affordable housing in many places in this country.

I do agree with the part that renters are almost never considered politically and I think there is something unsavory about encouraging home ownership at all cost. This fetish for single-family homes has led to disastrous suburban sprawl, which has devastated wildlife habitats, led to lots of environmental destruction due to the enormous burden of the road system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:08 AM

98. Many people rent because they cannot afford a house. Some save for a down payment but

many cannot. That means the prices of these apartments-stolen-to-become-houses would have to be priced below what renters are currently paying for rent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:44 AM

101. The biggest reason this wouldn't work

is that the law (which could never be passed in the first place) would be roundly ignored by almost everyone, and agents of the government that attempted to enforce it would be met with torches and pitchforks and worse. The politicians that attempt to support it would be voted out of office, or assassinated. Property rights are just too ingrained into our psyche and have been for thousands of years.

Other than that ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 09:57 AM

102. So are you a shill for the 'hospitality industry'? Because your proposal would be a boon to hotels

 

and restaurants, stripping citizens of the option of renting a home when working in an area for an extended but limited time, or when there to study, research or just to enjoy the place. People also need geographic flexibility just to care for elder family and for any number of other reasons.

At least your folks at Marriott would score big. Which really seems to be the point here. To control rents, you make rent controls, you don't make renting illegal, you make it heavily regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #102)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:59 AM

110. Short term rentals would boom alright- and all long term rentals will just be converted to them

 

As people used them for long term rentals because they couldn't/don't want to buy a home.

In fact, all landlords have to do is convert their long term rentals to short term rentals and rent to the same person week after week- creating a defacto long term rental and getting around this idiocy. Evict all your current long term tenants, list it on Air BnB by the week, let people book as many weeks as they want.

Unless the OP wishes to ban all hotels and short term rentals as well, or use the police to force people out of a rental after XXX days as part of the mysterious undefined "legislation" that will fix all the problems with this crazy plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:01 AM

103. It's pretty obvious nobody can actually have this discussion with you and get anywhere

 

Because you don't actually have a clue how it works, how real estate works, and when pressed for how it would apply to real-world examples where renting is better you just say "See #2 we will fix that with legislation".

But you have no proposals how to fix it with legislation, and no ideas that could work, just the magic "we will let Congress fix it" as if that is actually an answer and not a complete cop-out when people tell you why this is a horribly stupid idea.

Its pretty clear from how naive you are about real estate transactions with your idea of people quickly buying a "share of a home" and such that you have never actually purchased a home or had dealings in real estate.

I know, I know "legislation will fix that problem with it being complicated to buy a share of a home" is your magic answer to any of the real-world problems with this nutty plan. In the real world you can't just say "legislation will fix that" without actually proposing what that legislation says and does with some specificity and expect to be taken seriously.

So, lets see your SPECIFIC proposals for legislation that will be passed to make your scheme work.

Not just generalizations like "tax credits" "gradualizatioon" that are meaningless without details but actual proposals with some specificity. Actual proposals for how the law would look and read that enables your plan to work

If you don't have that, and you have no idea what that would look like, then you don't actually have a valid proposal- you just have what looks like sour grapes over a bad landlord and/or jealousy pushing you to look for legislation that affects everyone to fix your specific situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #103)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:17 AM

105. It's easy. A federal law which bans all economic relationships...

which I determined to be exploitative, insensitive or offensive.

I will provide a detailed list after the legislation is passed.

"If any form of pleasure is exhibited...

Report to me and it will be prohibited."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 10:44 AM

108. This specious thread makes liberals look stupid.

 

Renting may be exploitive and inhumane, but it's less inhumane than wholesale homelessness.

The argument goes something like this:
q) why should only landlords get the benefit of the capital investment?
a) because they invested the capital.
q) that's not fair! Everyone should share the benefit! Outlaw rent and make tenants owners.
a) okay, but how can the tenants afford it?
q) if you can't demand rent, property values drop to the point would-be tenants could afford to buy.
a) in what way does that help all these new mandated buyers "get the benefit of capital investment"? Besides, most tenants can afford to buy at only the price they paid to rent. I would dislike being stuck in an [strike]apartment[/strike] err... condominium in which every unit sold for less than $1000 and in which no one has any significant financial interest in preserving and maintaining.
But those "owners" would have you to thank for their predicament when it's time to move to the next town. The only reason a person would buy my unit is because every other condo in town is in a similar shape, and no one is building new ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #108)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 12:49 PM

111. Not to mention the fact.......

.......that purchase prices would have to fall more than a little below the point where monthly mortgage payments would equal what rent payments previously were because the new buyer will now, in addition to the monthly amount required just to stay in the housing unit in question, also have to come up with the cash for maintenance, repairs and property taxes.

People throw out these Pie in the Sky hyper-simplified ideas with not the first clue what they're talking about and then stubbornly cling to their premise no matter what actual facts they're presented with. It's almost amusing. Almost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread