If the government owned the properties, they’d have the full income from them. The only reason I’d see why they allow private landlords is so they can continue hogging the income when they’re no longer in politics.

Furthermore, private landlords ruin the government’s ability to do adequate city planning. You have cities like Dublin, a vastly overpopulated capital city, which has extreme low rise buildings all over the city center. And anyone in the country can veto a building scheme, so people abuse it to keep the prices of their own property high or just to sabotage the competition. It’s mad. It’s so stupid.

I also hate how people keep being forced or refuse to leave the wrong housing type, e.g. strangers forced to live together in family units, which further hogs said family units from families who obviously need them. Old people living alone in very oversized family units, complaining about feeling lonely. Single adults should always be able to live alone. Family units should prioritize families instead of making up prices which can only be afforded by many adult strangers living together. Old people would highly benefit from independent elder housing which isn’t oversized and features common areas where they could socialize with each other (a model forced onto the young people, which hurts them, I believe would really benefit the elderly - of course done humanely, since no one should have to worry about bathroom access due to people who live around them etc.).

Post sponsored by my first time living alone, but the apartment is a mess and I fear reporting all to the landlady who is apathetic (e.g. told me to get a cable extender when the power socket isn’t working). My water heater has been leaking for ages and only tomorrow I might get someone to fix it. I hate people who simp for (private) landlords. If I owned my housing, I wouldn’t fear going homeless and wouldn’t had had to move countries!

  • unperson [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’ve got a hang-over pet policy from when I was a baby leftist to abolish rents on land, but with a twist: Any exchange of money for the use of a property is a sale. It’s absolutely financial neoLIB bullshit but I can’t take it off my mind.

    The idea being that if, over time, you pay the landlord for maintenance + the value of the house, you get the title for the house, and this is the law and you can go to court, prove that you’ve paid for rent over however many years, and get the title of the house.

    If you leave before that there’d be some system where the “rent” payments are split equally and you get the value back from whoever is currently living there, because you’re selling your share to them. Since the payments are split equally minority “shareholders” leave first. If nobody lives there but you’re paying taxes and maintenance, you still paying for the house so you accrue shares of the house.

    I think it might be palatable for neolibs, destroy the value of homes for rent-seeking, but preserve it for construction, which is what libs always complain about when you talk about abolishing rent.

    • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I do not think so, atleast in the circles I am in with Neolibs, they will talk about how its the construction profits that they have to preserve untill you push harder on the rent itself then it all comes tumbling. and things like “It is not a bad thing to make a little money” come out. There is a fun thing libs do where they will say the nice sounding thing next to what they beilve if what they belive is too mean sounding