• ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      what’s sad about this mindless “ALAB” blathering is that it actively detracts from ACAB. ACAB isn’t just about “bad cops”, it’s about the entire police institution designed to support bad cops and cover up wrong doing.

      There is no “landlord institution”. Individual property owners are not related in any way. Separate agencies aren’t related. Bad landlords don’t force good landlords out of the market.

      There’s private equity firms which are evil, foreign investors who are evil, and so on, if you’re looking for some big boys to wave your torches and pitchforks at. There’s issues with capitalism.

      Renting is fantastic. You want to build a house or buy a house, or renovate your house, but it takes a few months? You move to a new area, temporary job relocation for a project? You rent. From someone who owns a house. Called a landlord. They are providing the service of making this available for you in an area you want.

      Now, yes, local and state governments should be building more properties to rent cheaply, and you know what that’s called? Competition in the marketplace, which is what is needed.

      “ALAB” is a bullshit concept. Until Landlord B walks over to Landlord A and starts forcing them to raise their rents, it’s not an institutional problem.

      I will say: most property agents are evil, lazy and stupid. Relators for rentals. They usually get paid a percentage of the rent, so they have a direct interest in raising rents. Landlords (the owners) are just people. Most never had the training to run rental properties which is why they listen to the supposed ‘expertise’ of the stupid, lazy, evil agents.

      Here’s a classic news clip from the 90s, where a guy says what we all agree on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lyex2tSUyA

      (just a little misunderstanding which all works itself out)

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        As it applies to residence, the concept of “renting” is fundamentally broken and damaging. “Renting” is a commercial activity; “housing” is a human necessity. Combining the two is inherently exploitative, so “ALAB” is a reasonable and apt observation.

        Renting is fantastic. You want to build a house or buy a house, or renovate your house, but it takes a few months? You move to a new area, temporary job relocation for a project? You rent. From someone who owns a house. Called a landlord. They are providing the service of making this available for you in an area you want.

        A better option in these scenarios is a “land contract”. This is, basically, a rent-to-own scenario. During the initial period, if the occupant withdraws or defaults on the contract, they forfeit any equity they have built, just like a rental.

        Unlike a rental, however, there is no annual increase in the rent: the purchase price is fully amortized, and (so long as they maintain the agreement past the initial period), the tenant gains equity with every payment and every increase in market value.

        That full amortization / fixed payment is the main reason why landlords don’t currently like land contracts. They want to be able to command a 5-10% price hike every year.

        To make land contracts the better option for landlords, we can establish an owner-occupant credit against property taxes. A landlord is a non-occupant owner, and is not entitled to the credit. Under a land contract, the occupant is considered the owner, and eligible for the credit. With a sufficiently high property tax rate on non-occupant investor-owners, a landlord stands to earn a significantly greater return on land contracts or private mortgages than they can earn on renting a given property.