If no one is allowed to own a domicile in a residential zone intended for one or more people unless they personally reside there at some given point in a year, the prices of houses would be pretty agreeable, and then yes, people would be paying mortgages, which also means they’d own all the equity they are buying into while they live there. Landlords provide nothing but more exploitation of people already exploited to death.
I’m a renter because i need short term housing less than a year and large apartment complexes seem to satisfy my needs alright ish. Would it be better if it was owned by investments from the people who live there long term? Dunno, sounds like a way to gatekeep poor people out who can’t buy a share.
There is a space in-between landlord-owned-apartment and individual-owned-condo called a co-op where the residents own the apartment building and pay a share of the operating costs and get a say in how the building is run.
There’s a variety of ways they can be run, but they are typically cheaper than normal renting in the long term, and can be competitive with renting in terms of the up-front cost.
I do not believe co-op housing bylaws/elected leaders generally are supportive of rentals shorter than 13 months. They generally value long-term stability so they have policies that require longer leases. Of course there may be housing co-ops run by students or seasonal workers so they support short term leases, but that’s a minority of housing co-ops. (This argument is very poorly researched).
This is a Lemmy comment section. Actual legislation could surely provide a good middle ground. Rental units offer valuable resource to a very specific minority of people, so they shouldn’t necessarily disappear. But in my region, 42% of people rent a home. There is no reason for nearly half of the population to be living in a temporary residence. Everyone I know who rents has lived within the same 10 mile radius their entire adult lives.
If no one is allowed to own a domicile in a residential zone intended for one or more people unless they personally reside there at some given point in a year, the prices of houses would be pretty agreeable, and then yes, people would be paying mortgages, which also means they’d own all the equity they are buying into while they live there. Landlords provide nothing but more exploitation of people already exploited to death.
I’m a renter because i need short term housing less than a year and large apartment complexes seem to satisfy my needs alright ish. Would it be better if it was owned by investments from the people who live there long term? Dunno, sounds like a way to gatekeep poor people out who can’t buy a share.
There is a space in-between landlord-owned-apartment and individual-owned-condo called a co-op where the residents own the apartment building and pay a share of the operating costs and get a say in how the building is run.
There’s a variety of ways they can be run, but they are typically cheaper than normal renting in the long term, and can be competitive with renting in terms of the up-front cost.
I do not believe co-op housing bylaws/elected leaders generally are supportive of rentals shorter than 13 months. They generally value long-term stability so they have policies that require longer leases. Of course there may be housing co-ops run by students or seasonal workers so they support short term leases, but that’s a minority of housing co-ops. (This argument is very poorly researched).
This is a Lemmy comment section. Actual legislation could surely provide a good middle ground. Rental units offer valuable resource to a very specific minority of people, so they shouldn’t necessarily disappear. But in my region, 42% of people rent a home. There is no reason for nearly half of the population to be living in a temporary residence. Everyone I know who rents has lived within the same 10 mile radius their entire adult lives.