This has nothing to do with being a “good” person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I’m not saying it’s just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I’d realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no “good person” simply owns a residential property that they don’t live in.
I know I’m not who you’re replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
There are legit reasons to rent and not own everything. Just like tools, might be better to rent a table saw than buy one that now you have to store and maintain.
If tools were collectively owned, for instance, they could be kept in a community tool locker/garage that the whole community would own and be able to borrow whenever needed. “Rent” would be replaced by a small fee paid into the community to maintain the tools, not some profit seeking parasitism from a renter looking to exploit people’s need for tools.
bullshit. me pointing out that renting is acceptable in certain situations and price gouging renters are not the same. they’re related, but are different debates.
If tools were collectively owned, for instance, they could be kept in a community tool locker/garage that the whole community would own and be able to borrow whenever needed. “Rent” would be replaced by a small fee paid into the community to maintain the tools, not some profit seeking parasitism from a renter looking to exploit people’s need for tools.
there is nothing wrong with this either. my point was i have zero reason to ever own an auger. i’d rent it, use it, then return. i don’t want to store that shit or maintain it. i live in a condo with limited storage space for that, not to mention i’d probably use it once a decade.
Ok but this isn’t really the same thing. A home isn’t a tool you rent just to use when you need it. Everyone needs a shelter to live in.
You give two reasons it’s preferable to rent rather than own your home:
You have to store it.
That’s just ridiculous.
You have to maintain it.
You do realise that you’re still paying to maintain it, right? The landlord is just also taking extra. Even if the landlord were charging you only what was strictly necessary for maintenance (which they aren’t), they’d still have unnecessary leverage over you just for existing in a space.
Don’t try to make excuses for landlords. We all know they’re vermin. They’re not doing you any favours by forcing you to keep paying high prices to live.
Everyone needs a shelter to live in, but that doesn’t mean everyone can afford buying one outright. What about the people who can’t afford to buy one outright?
If someone can’t afford to buy a house or a condo, does that mean they shouldn’t get to live in one?
What about people who want the freedom to move from place to place without being tied down, too bad, they have to own a place?
that doesn’t mean everyone can afford buying one outright
Generally that’s what mortgages are for. Considering rent needs to cover the cost of [ mortgage + expenses + the landlord’s profit ] anyone that can afford rent can afford the mortgage.
That’s not to mention the reason housing prices are so absurd is because landlords are buying up all the available supply in order to profit it off of it existing. Without landlords housing becomes much more affordable.
What about people who want the freedom to move from place to place without being tied down, too bad, they have to own a place?
We are having a housing crisis right now. So how about we worry about the large group of people who want to own shelter and can’t, and then we can worry about the much smaller group of people who have the means to move constantly but find hiring a realtor just too much effort.
Suppose a person owns an apartment building. What’s the process they should follow to behave as a good person should?
This has nothing to do with being a “good” person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
No ones acquires an entire apartment building in the first place with the purpose of living in it. They do it to become rent-seeking parasites.
But to your hypothetical, they could create a co-op as @[email protected] mentioned.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I’m not saying it’s just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
Sell it to the tenants.
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I’d realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no “good person” simply owns a residential property that they don’t live in.
I know I’m not who you’re replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
There are legit reasons to rent and not own everything. Just like tools, might be better to rent a table saw than buy one that now you have to store and maintain.
That’s not a reason for anyone to make money from rents.
That’s a different discussion. I’m just saying there are reasons to rent rather than own.
That’s not a different discussion, though.
If tools were collectively owned, for instance, they could be kept in a community tool locker/garage that the whole community would own and be able to borrow whenever needed. “Rent” would be replaced by a small fee paid into the community to maintain the tools, not some profit seeking parasitism from a renter looking to exploit people’s need for tools.
Renting isn’t the problem. Renters are.
bullshit. me pointing out that renting is acceptable in certain situations and price gouging renters are not the same. they’re related, but are different debates.
there is nothing wrong with this either. my point was i have zero reason to ever own an auger. i’d rent it, use it, then return. i don’t want to store that shit or maintain it. i live in a condo with limited storage space for that, not to mention i’d probably use it once a decade.
wut?
Rent seekers are parasites and the world would be better off without them.
They are unproductive exploiters and can and should be completely replaced.
Ok but this isn’t really the same thing. A home isn’t a tool you rent just to use when you need it. Everyone needs a shelter to live in.
You give two reasons it’s preferable to rent rather than own your home:
That’s just ridiculous.
You do realise that you’re still paying to maintain it, right? The landlord is just also taking extra. Even if the landlord were charging you only what was strictly necessary for maintenance (which they aren’t), they’d still have unnecessary leverage over you just for existing in a space.
Don’t try to make excuses for landlords. We all know they’re vermin. They’re not doing you any favours by forcing you to keep paying high prices to live.
(Edit: formatting)
Everyone needs a shelter to live in, but that doesn’t mean everyone can afford buying one outright. What about the people who can’t afford to buy one outright?
If someone can’t afford to buy a house or a condo, does that mean they shouldn’t get to live in one?
What about people who want the freedom to move from place to place without being tied down, too bad, they have to own a place?
Generally that’s what mortgages are for. Considering rent needs to cover the cost of [ mortgage + expenses + the landlord’s profit ] anyone that can afford rent can afford the mortgage.
That’s not to mention the reason housing prices are so absurd is because landlords are buying up all the available supply in order to profit it off of it existing. Without landlords housing becomes much more affordable.
We are having a housing crisis right now. So how about we worry about the large group of people who want to own shelter and can’t, and then we can worry about the much smaller group of people who have the means to move constantly but find hiring a realtor just too much effort.
Well I didn’t know you knew the answer to everything. And I’m not defending anyone, I’m presenting a different scenario, one that I have been in.