• nature_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably a controversial opinion but companies should not be able to own residential real estate at all, the reason most people cant get a house is because big companies are buying them up with limitless sums of money so they can rent them out infinitely, its not a free market when the big company will pay 20% over your entire life savings just to make sure you don’t own anything.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not just limitless sums, companies are borrowing at very low interest rates and skyrocketing real estate prices with free money. Consequelty also causing mass inflation. So you’re paying for them owning houses.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely nothing controversial about the truth. In fact, I’d say it’s the exact opposite of controversial, at least in this case.

      • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Controversial would be, “if the government won’t stop corporations from buying up single family homes, we should do it ourselves by any means necessary.” That’s controversial.

    • notannpc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not controversial at all. The world would be a better place if residential real estate “investment” didn’t exist.

    • noyou@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah no this isn’t controversial. Private landlords serve no purpose in society. You just pay them their mortgage for the privilege of living in their house. It’s ridiculous.

    • tmyakal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree in the case of single-family homes. Even in cases of 3 or 4 unit buildings. But how do you propose full-on complexes get run if not by a company? Very few individuals have the capital to buy a 50-unit building, and honestly, the US needs more dense urban housing to help reduce our impact on climate.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Easy. Non-profit co-ops, ideally as part of land trusts. They keep prices reasonable, give all community members a say, and the people who are lucky enough to live in them love them.

      • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        My opinion that would be just like asking who would own the streets you use to get to it.

        We don’t wonder how that really expensive bridge gets owned… Sometimes it’s due to tolls but not always.

      • 31337
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cooperative-like legal structures and public housing are viable options.

      • Noxy@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Condos. (for non-Americans, this means “apartments except owner-occupied, or at least individually owned and then rented out”

        I lived in a 200+ unit condo building. Owned my unit and some proportion of the common stuff and had voting rights and such in the HOA.