• JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Best case scenario, rent is low and only covers taxes and building upkeep. Then you’re essentially getting a zero interest loan since property is valuable and it’s being loaned for free.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Rent is obscene virtually everywhere. Rent should not preclude someone from saving money towards owning their own home, and it really does.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also, the available, functionally livable land is going to quickly get smaller with climate change. So the more viable land is hoarded, the more people are pushed into desperate and bad living situations. (For example, who are the people with homes on coastlines affected by rising sea levels going to actually sell their soon-to-be-underwater property to? Won’t it effectively be valueless under water?)

        https://www.semafor.com/article/11/02/2022/climate-change-alters-way-of-life-in-michigans-upper-peninsula

        Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is being gentrified because it’s an area least likely to be affected by climate change. A lot of the mega-rich are buying property around that area.

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t disagree. Obscenely high rent is common and bad. That means the interest on the loan that you are getting is extremely high. The solutions would be subsiding it by government owned housing, allowing new housing (especially high density) to be built, and discouraging people from living in cities. I think we should do both the first two.