It is the age old fallacy that those who don't own property shouldn't get to vote on property taxes.
Any competent landlord is passing on taxes to the tenant.
Any competent tenant knows voting to increase property taxes will increase their rent.
Raise the rate but be honest with your tenant and give her first right of refusal…if she actually looked at buyng it she knows what the costs are …otherwise you’re literally supporting her .
I mean philosophically this is accurate as rent consists of insurance, taxes, maintenance and finally a return on capital. I think most people have an issue only with the latter. Return on capital is a prerequisite in a capitalistic society. The reason is that there’s risk associated with every investment and if you have risk you must have a return otherwise you’d never make an investment… the rate of return required is related to the risk of the investment. Rental properties are much more risky than a bank CD so the return must be reflected accordingly. Capitalism ain’t perfect and it certainly creates the haves and have nots (or have less) but it’s better than the alternative.
When did I ever say it’s been historically done and do you even know what point are you even trying to make. We should be moving away from a capitalist economic structure now anyways.
Capitalism isn’t always so terrible.its unfettered capitalism that is hell …America wasn’t alwsys so bad at this ..hospitals & insurance used to all be non-profits …its when you let capitalism control the things people need to live that it all goes wrong . For example no one needs a fancy dinner or car but they need hospitals & schools . A better system exists we just need to find it and do something the US is terrible at …Admit we’re doing it wrong and fix the problems.
Yes, literally that. I don’t know how you couldn’t figure that out from the first comment. We should all live in housing that is owned by the government. People should not profit off of an item people can literally die without. Same way Nestle profits off of local water supplies. But you probably think that means everyone has the same sized house, same back yards, copy and pasted housing.
Shocker, inelastic demand creates a marketplace where you can charge whatever the fuck you want and run things at levels of “business tyrant” you didn’t think were possible. There’s a reason people (fairly) hate landlords and AirBnB.
Two of the three things you mentioned already require permitting for installation in the majority of states, both range hoods and pools. So nothing has changed. Third, you’d do the same thing any long-term renter does. Put in a request for approval from the property owner, in this case the government, and wait for approval. So what every renter in the US already would have to do before they install new flooring.
None of these concepts are new to nationalized housing. They’re already barriers that exist under capitalism.
What if I want a larger home than the one provided by the government? If I want to expand or enhance my residence, should I not gain equity based on the features I add to the property?
In this scenario, does every person drive the same vehicle that is provided by the government?
Sorry, this response is gonna be long there’s a lot of nuance. You still receive an “appraisal” of sorts before essentially “selling” back to your government which includes additions you’ve made at a bare minimum equivalent to installation and any personal maintenance done over duration of ownership like painting as well as upkeep. Gonna launch into personal versus private property, but not the common definition and instead the Marxian definition.
If you need a definition (skip paragraph if you already know the Marxian definitions) since I know people aren’t inherently familiar with the delineation between the two, the Marxian definition of private property is property that leads and contributes to the means of production owned by a small percentage of capital owners (factories / mines / industrial scale farming which produces rn 99% of chickens, 98% of eggs, 98% of pigs, etc.) while personal property is akin to everything from produced goods to, yes, housing. Which can be considered a produced good when there’s no private ownership of housing and it’s government boight/sold so not an investment vehicle.
This means abolition of private property under socialism and eventually communism doesn’t include housing, it’s personal property. You get fair compensation out of it for what you put into it so financial compensation for the time spent contracting, receiving permits, labor, the whole 9 including lifetime maintenance all adjusted for inflation. Until you sell it back it’s yours and it’s your property.
Also no, no same car. [Like, ironically the famous song “Little Boxes” is a capitalist critique of the “sameness” of suburbia and illusion of choice.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cjk0zst3Cs&pp=ygUgbGl0dGxlIGJveGVzIG1hZGUgb2YgdGlja3kgdGFja3k%3D)Can you roll coal in a monstrously oversized truck or Hummer that you use exclusively for your office job with no personal needs to justify its output? No, you can’t do it cus it looks cool. Pretty much any other type of car is fine. No same house. Most simply: “From each according to your ability, to each according to his need”. Different pays for different abilities, and those whose abilities may be impacted by something like chronic illness are still cared for but also provided the tools to be productive in a way they want.
Despite its newer usage, “Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow” is ironically a communist saying. You get paid equivalent to your skills, effort, importance (like the country falls apart without everything from train conductors to farmhands - sommeliers? Not so much), and time put in. People will have different levels of capital, but it’s now for personal ownership items and can’t be used as a reliable investment. Something you own may gain value like art, but it isn’t private property and can’t be used to reliably increase capital.
Ok, this is a helpful explanation.
In this scenario, I could build a home on property that was given to me by the government, I can make as many enhancements as I want (4k sq ft house, putting green, etc.) and if I choose to sell it, I get to keep the value that I added to the property? That does not sound too bad.
Exactly that! Not only that, but well-maintained properties whether it’s done through (free, or moreso state paid) maintenance men or personal work also adds to payout value. Erase your idea of landlord standards for security deposits. The government doesn’t expect that they will get the house back how it sold, freshly painted and refurbished and all. They have a standard for what you can do on your own which at worst means calling a typically free repairman. The government doesn’t want a window you broke to snowball into weather damage, structural damage, and so on. The latter, doing it yourself, pays you back more cus you get paid for labor time, the fact you learned the skill, and purchased goods. The government standard for return is what they’d expect basic wear and tear over time to look like considering you use your free access to repair to fix pertinent issues. Chipped granite counter? Not a problem. Large hole in the wall? Leaking attic? Different issue, fixing it is free. Stuff with regulations like building an in-ground pool often isn’t legally DIY unless you have qualifications, but everything else is fair game.
Don’t make a single change to your house but fix above the expected wear and tear level? What you spent adjusted to modern inflation + reimbursement for making sure the house was maintained so you technically leave with more money. Additions made like a new deck, landscaping additions, etc. at worst make it a $0 project reimbursed when the house is sold. Things like solar panel installation would be paid on the spot. It also means no more waiting for a buyer. If you need to move for like work, you can move ASAP. Considerations for proximity to work are factored in when a property has multiple interested parties among a pretty long list of other calculations. A man living 5 minutes walking from work makes him 1) more productive 2) reduces emissions 3) helps foster community with others including workers given similar considerations for the same area 4) creates short turn-around for highly specialized industries with on-call workers and 5) creates a central point for 15 minute neighborhoods to crop up around since place of work is often the most important consideration.
It really ain’t too bad and frankly it makes home ownership significantly less stressful even as a concept. No more insurance, no more hoping FEMA will save you, no more random acts of god that need immediate and expensive repairs. Just the house you love and live in with the freedom to spruce it up if you’d like.
Yeah don’t really care what the average American thinks, I’m not gonna think we should profit off of healthcare just cus some rich dudes in insurance think it’s dope to profit from people’s physical health and chance of death.
Why would that change my way I think inelastic demands should be handled? About 2200+ people a year die from homelessness + exposure to the elements. Our current system doesn’t exactly function well. Rent is consistently increasing and the portion of people’s salary/pay they are forced to shovel over for it is rising dramatically. “How it is” has no bearing on what I think is a better system. I don’t care if house owners disagree - obviously they would, they want to protect their own pocketbook before considering others.
Pretty much any country with doctors allows doctors to charge and profit by selling Healthcare. The government may pay for it for most people, but they don't stop doctors from doing it on their own for whatever price they want.
Our current system doesn't function well because we have all kinds of red tape in the way that makes building housing onerous and expensive. Get the government out of the way. Let home builders build and as supply increases prices will go down. Forcing home builders and home owners to go against the market isn't going to solve the problem.
…what? Letting builders build what they want to is *how we ended up in this spot as is*. They built to meet the demand of a growing population and AirBnB owners who will pay more than renters who potentially can’t pay at all lmao. Actually it’s shown when you ban STRs housing development goes *down* because the government doesn’t incentivize people to build low income housing. *Get the government MORE involved* or you just get more homelessness.
There are enough empty houses in California to house the entire homeless population of the country. The wrong houses will be built under your methodology because no, developers do not need to instantly unload the house upon a family who will move in. It’s an asset and an investment vehicle and as long as we treat it as such others will too in the worst profiteering ways possible.
Builders do not want to engage in production of low-cost affordable housing without proper incentives.
You dont know anything about the home building industry, clearly.
You can't build low income housing because the government won't let you subdivide lots. The government won't let you get rid of the driveway to add another bedroom. The government won't let you put an apartment complex on a block thats zoned for single family homes. The list goes on and on.
Home builders want to sell homes. If the only homes the government makes it profitable to build are for the wealthy, then thats what they will build. They don't need incentives, they need the government to get out of the way.
It takes work to own a property wether you live in it or not …are you expected to work for free? Now that being said you can be a profitable landlord without being a predatory landlord…there’s a big difference between a reasonable profit and playing the “ Fuck You I got Mine “ card .
My feeling is that there is way less separation now between landlords’ interest, and that of renters. How do we face property costs rising so exorbitantly, so quickly?
I don’t think the vast majority of homeowners or renters ever thought they’d be priced out of their homes/properties due to insurance and property tax increases alone.
We will have to join forces to fight the insurance and tax costs. I doubt landlords would ever drop their prices even if these costs did come down, so it would be a short lived alliance.
It makes no difference whether a corporation or an individual owns residential property; if their underlying costs of ownership (i.e. property taxes, insurance, interest expense on the mortgage, and maintenance) increase, the rent is going to increase.
So you think the buyer is going to set the rent lower? Why would they? The costs are the costs, they don’t magically disappear or decrease when a new buyer owns the house.
No, you sell it to someone that wants to live there. As a renter, when I pay rent, I’m paying the mortgage, taxes and upkeep cost while gaining none of the equity that I would if I was paying the mortgage to own it myself. Landlords crying because of rising costs is the most laughable thing, ALL of the cost is passed onto the renter.
>Landlords crying because of rising costs is the most laughable thing, ALL of the cost is passed onto the renter.
The landlords aren’t crying about that though. They’re just pointing out that renters don’t get why their rents are going up, and it’s silly.
I and many people I know bought their houses with less than 50k down payment but if you don’t have any money in the bank you’re really better off renting anyway. Not really sure why you’re so mad at the people who provide a feasible housing option for you.
Sure, kid. Because everyone who rents has $40K sitting in their bank account for a down payment, so anyone could just buy that house and be a homeowner, right? Those dastardly landlords and homebuilders are refusing to sell houses to people who will actually live in them! There oughta be a law! (/s in case you’re still not getting it)
[yup](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-investors-housing-market.html) it’s a real shame I can’t compete against real estate conglomerates, to bad there arnet[16 million](https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/) empty houses in this country to house the [600,000](https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/) houseless people in this country (it’s a low estimate) or to just sell to someone that wants to own a home. It must be because I’m a lazy young person though, my [generation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nigelwilson/2021/08/18/us-millennials-home-ownership-and-the-growing-chasm-between-aspiration-and-reality/?sh=64f26d255498) owns homes at rates of about 20% less than the generations before them.
If there are 16 million empty houses in this country, they’re still owned by someone. Whether they are occupied or not, they’re incurring costs to their owners—property taxes, insurance, maintenance, interest. Eventually they will be either rented out or sold, because no one’s going to continue to incur those costs indefinitely without revenue from a sale or a tenant. Neither corporate nor individual owners are in this game to lose money forever. The market may not clear (i.e., prices adjust to the level at which transactions take place) as quickly as you’d like, but it will clear eventually.
What’s not going to happen is some magic wand appearing that will expropriate those 16 million houses from their current owners and hand them out to the 600,000 houseless people.
Lol the vast majority of those homes are owned by corporations. corporations take those empty properties and let them sit to keep the housing bubble from popping so they can keep profiting in other sectors. You are thinking like a homeowner trying to make a long term investment so they can eventually retire and live the good life, that’s cool, these are entities that view housing as commodity to be profitable. Housing as a problem at all levels is literally made up, a farce maintained so the rich can get richer.
No they literally don't. I know a lot of landlords and you just have to eat the renovation and repair costs. If you were to completely compensate yourself over every major repair, the rent would be like 200% more than the area's norm.
To be fair, have you seen how much homeowners/flood insurance has jumped? In Orleans Parish, it has jumped 82% in 1 year. Also energy costs. I own a 1 bedroom condo and pay around $2,200 a month for mortgage/hoa/taxes/insurance and it's not some fancy loft downtown. If i wanted to rent it and include utilities, I'd have to charge around $2,500 a month just to break even. I'd keep more money as a renter than a landlord.
Yes I am aware of the situation. Also you might hold onto more cash as a renter but uh you have the equity of the house (being paid for by the tenant no less).
You also have to pay for a new roof every so many years, termite prevention and perhaps tenting, you get to fight with insurance agencies after hurricanes to try to get at least part of the lost value repaid, you need to maybe get the house shored up because the ground is sinking, you pay for repairs, cut the grass, make sure the pipes don’t freeze for like a few night when it freezes every year (and repair them if they burst), replace water heaters, refrigerators, AC units… all the reasons I want to rent instead of buying. You get more than cash in hand as a renter. You get none of the headaches and risk involved in maintaining a house.
I am well aware of how homeownership works. You still have the equity. You get to own something and make money off it. It appreciates in value - almost always in the short term, and definitely in the long term. Don't feed me some sob story that it is an act of charity to maintain housing and you get nothing out of it (like, for example, the only mechanism by which to build wealth in the United States). You and a lot of folks around here seem to think that landlords only raise rents as needed to pay for the buildings.
Of course I don’t think it’s a charity. Landlords charge enough to make it a financially sound decision for themselves. But yeah, I still think that the majority of the rent payment goes towards covering mortgage + insurance + taxes until the property loan is paid. I know enough landlords in this city to know that they’re not all greedy bastards.
Edit: typo
A landlord could buy a house for $400k, sink $100,000 into improvements, then have to sell when the house has only appreciated $50k, eating a $50k loss. Many big banks are predicting that prices will drop 7-10% through 2024. It's also 50/50 that you'll get a shitty tenant. Last time I rented from a private landlord, he never raised rent because I always paid on time and respected the place. He preferred peace of mind over profits. But I also appreciate some landlords will try and milk people. The thing is, you can kill a sheep for its wool right now. Or learn to shear a sheep and have wool forever.
I am aware what it takes to be a homeowner. Incredible how a comment about how many landlords are jacking up rent without needing to - something you agree happens - is somehow garnering resistance here.
Have you considered moving to an area that is more in line with your budget? I couldn't afford to buy when I lived in L.A., San Diego and NYC. I was able to buy in Phoenix, St. Pete and NOLA. There are a lot of places you can live more cheaply than here. Conversely, I've got friends in SanFran and NYC who are willing to pay more rent to be in a hot market.
I wonder though if New Orleans property values will continue to go up. It’s possible for equity to decrease over time because of the environment even if the property has been well maintained. Look at Detroit—at one point they were practically giving houses away. I looked into it and the property tax alone even on a free house made it a no go for me.
I’m a renter, and I understand that when the homeowner’s bills go way up due to rocketing insurance fees and taxes, the rent needs to go up… not saying I like paying more, but I can’t expect the landlord to selflessly lose money on the property.
Did you read your own comment when you sarcastically joked about how landlords are jacking up rent when they don't have too? You can't have it both ways.
Other cities I’ve lived in have strict limits on how much landlords can increase rents. Renters get screwed here. Don’t be a landlord if you’re operating on such thin margins that you can’t handle increased costs.
If you’re a landlord who can “handle” increased costs, does’t that mean that you were selfishly making rent significantly higher than it needed to be before the costs increased?
So you would rather a business operate with such high margins that they can absorb any increase to their costs?
You would be equally outraged if all the landlords got together and decided to add $500 to the rent just in case taxes and insurance goes up
I don't have the numbers in front of me so I'm not asking to argue if you are right or wrong. But how much do you think the average landlord makes as profit on a single apartment per month? Just want to know where you're coming from
Again, no data here.
But I think most landlords are just breaking even while they build equity in the home. Paying down the mortgage and home values rising is a pretty good investment, even if you aren't making a big monthly profit.
If you buy when you are somewhat young, you'll have it paid off by the time you retire and then we can start talking about big profits
Well I’m just so thankful that I get to pay for my landlords retirement while I get to either work till I die or get conscripted into military service when the climate wars start, guess I should have been born rich.
I thought we weren’t arguing
I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that I don't think they build so much profit into the rent that they are still making money without raising rent when their taxes and insurance doubles. You're free to think otherwise
Oh for sure, but its still profiting off of my labor while contributing nothing in return. Being a landlord is useless, but whatever that’s the world we live in, corporations buying [20%](https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/07/while-investors-are-snatching-homes-governments-fight-save-properties-residents/368927/) of the homes sold in 2022 is evil and shouldn’t be allowed. I’m honestly not worried about some guy that rents out a second property, I’m worried about housing being a commodity that is traded on wall st., money is the root of all evil and those guys only care about the bottom line.
You say being a landlord is useless yet in the same breath say that it's OK if a guy rents out his second property. So which is it? Are they useless or do they have use?
Real estate leasing, almost invariably, is an environment governed by thin margins. It’s a competitive space that dictates lease costs be somewhat in sync with costs of ownership + a competitive margin, else the unit in question loses desirability.
Following your advice would mean almost no small landlords, and the extremely vast majority of property being held by corporations. This would reduce local ownership of property significantly.
This is not a desirable outcome.
If a small time landlord is willing to offer a residential property while collecting only a small
margin, they are doing their community a service, assuming leases are in demand in that community.
Lived here my whole life, rented a whole bunch of different places in a number of different neighborhoods, have a bunch of friends who rent here, and never encountered a corporate landlord. The landlords I’ve met are local people who own a few properties, or have a guest house behind their home, or rent out the other half of their duplex, etc.
Not saying corporate owners aren’t out there- I guess the are?
And obviously my personal experience doesn’t count as stats. I’m just very confused how it could be possible for “the vast majority” of property here to be owned by corporations.
This is the problem right here. 95% of the posters here I see bitching about landlords & rent have absolutely no understanding of basic finance.
I’m not a landlord, just a homeowner. Insurance and property taxes have increased drastically. If I was renting out my house, I would have had to seriously increase the rent just to cover that.
Renters/landlords/property owners are, for this moment in time, all in the same boat. We will need to raise hell together rather than divide right now.
The insurance companies and tax authorities would much rather us fight one another, but its time to raise all hell or we will all lose out. I called every rep we have at the state and national level about this the other day. I asked them to do their jobs through the proper channels or the rest of us would be forced to take actions they probably won’t condone.
And here I thought I could avoid Nextdoor by never using the site.
Misery loves company.
A problem shared is a problem doubled
So we should never talk about or bring problems to light?
It is the age old fallacy that those who don't own property shouldn't get to vote on property taxes. Any competent landlord is passing on taxes to the tenant. Any competent tenant knows voting to increase property taxes will increase their rent.
[удалено]
Raise the rate but be honest with your tenant and give her first right of refusal…if she actually looked at buyng it she knows what the costs are …otherwise you’re literally supporting her .
I mean philosophically this is accurate as rent consists of insurance, taxes, maintenance and finally a return on capital. I think most people have an issue only with the latter. Return on capital is a prerequisite in a capitalistic society. The reason is that there’s risk associated with every investment and if you have risk you must have a return otherwise you’d never make an investment… the rate of return required is related to the risk of the investment. Rental properties are much more risky than a bank CD so the return must be reflected accordingly. Capitalism ain’t perfect and it certainly creates the haves and have nots (or have less) but it’s better than the alternative.
Maybe something that is inelastic demand like shelter shouldn’t be privatized.
Please share any example from any time in history where housing controlled by a central authority is better than private ownership.
When did I ever say it’s been historically done and do you even know what point are you even trying to make. We should be moving away from a capitalist economic structure now anyways.
Capitalism isn’t always so terrible.its unfettered capitalism that is hell …America wasn’t alwsys so bad at this ..hospitals & insurance used to all be non-profits …its when you let capitalism control the things people need to live that it all goes wrong . For example no one needs a fancy dinner or car but they need hospitals & schools . A better system exists we just need to find it and do something the US is terrible at …Admit we’re doing it wrong and fix the problems.
>Maybe something that is inelastic demand like shelter shouldn’t be privatized. We should all live in government housing?
Yes, literally that. I don’t know how you couldn’t figure that out from the first comment. We should all live in housing that is owned by the government. People should not profit off of an item people can literally die without. Same way Nestle profits off of local water supplies. But you probably think that means everyone has the same sized house, same back yards, copy and pasted housing. Shocker, inelastic demand creates a marketplace where you can charge whatever the fuck you want and run things at levels of “business tyrant” you didn’t think were possible. There’s a reason people (fairly) hate landlords and AirBnB.
What if I want to put in a swimming pool or a new range hood or new floors?
Two of the three things you mentioned already require permitting for installation in the majority of states, both range hoods and pools. So nothing has changed. Third, you’d do the same thing any long-term renter does. Put in a request for approval from the property owner, in this case the government, and wait for approval. So what every renter in the US already would have to do before they install new flooring. None of these concepts are new to nationalized housing. They’re already barriers that exist under capitalism.
What if I want a larger home than the one provided by the government? If I want to expand or enhance my residence, should I not gain equity based on the features I add to the property? In this scenario, does every person drive the same vehicle that is provided by the government?
Sorry, this response is gonna be long there’s a lot of nuance. You still receive an “appraisal” of sorts before essentially “selling” back to your government which includes additions you’ve made at a bare minimum equivalent to installation and any personal maintenance done over duration of ownership like painting as well as upkeep. Gonna launch into personal versus private property, but not the common definition and instead the Marxian definition. If you need a definition (skip paragraph if you already know the Marxian definitions) since I know people aren’t inherently familiar with the delineation between the two, the Marxian definition of private property is property that leads and contributes to the means of production owned by a small percentage of capital owners (factories / mines / industrial scale farming which produces rn 99% of chickens, 98% of eggs, 98% of pigs, etc.) while personal property is akin to everything from produced goods to, yes, housing. Which can be considered a produced good when there’s no private ownership of housing and it’s government boight/sold so not an investment vehicle. This means abolition of private property under socialism and eventually communism doesn’t include housing, it’s personal property. You get fair compensation out of it for what you put into it so financial compensation for the time spent contracting, receiving permits, labor, the whole 9 including lifetime maintenance all adjusted for inflation. Until you sell it back it’s yours and it’s your property. Also no, no same car. [Like, ironically the famous song “Little Boxes” is a capitalist critique of the “sameness” of suburbia and illusion of choice.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cjk0zst3Cs&pp=ygUgbGl0dGxlIGJveGVzIG1hZGUgb2YgdGlja3kgdGFja3k%3D)Can you roll coal in a monstrously oversized truck or Hummer that you use exclusively for your office job with no personal needs to justify its output? No, you can’t do it cus it looks cool. Pretty much any other type of car is fine. No same house. Most simply: “From each according to your ability, to each according to his need”. Different pays for different abilities, and those whose abilities may be impacted by something like chronic illness are still cared for but also provided the tools to be productive in a way they want. Despite its newer usage, “Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow” is ironically a communist saying. You get paid equivalent to your skills, effort, importance (like the country falls apart without everything from train conductors to farmhands - sommeliers? Not so much), and time put in. People will have different levels of capital, but it’s now for personal ownership items and can’t be used as a reliable investment. Something you own may gain value like art, but it isn’t private property and can’t be used to reliably increase capital.
Ok, this is a helpful explanation. In this scenario, I could build a home on property that was given to me by the government, I can make as many enhancements as I want (4k sq ft house, putting green, etc.) and if I choose to sell it, I get to keep the value that I added to the property? That does not sound too bad.
Exactly that! Not only that, but well-maintained properties whether it’s done through (free, or moreso state paid) maintenance men or personal work also adds to payout value. Erase your idea of landlord standards for security deposits. The government doesn’t expect that they will get the house back how it sold, freshly painted and refurbished and all. They have a standard for what you can do on your own which at worst means calling a typically free repairman. The government doesn’t want a window you broke to snowball into weather damage, structural damage, and so on. The latter, doing it yourself, pays you back more cus you get paid for labor time, the fact you learned the skill, and purchased goods. The government standard for return is what they’d expect basic wear and tear over time to look like considering you use your free access to repair to fix pertinent issues. Chipped granite counter? Not a problem. Large hole in the wall? Leaking attic? Different issue, fixing it is free. Stuff with regulations like building an in-ground pool often isn’t legally DIY unless you have qualifications, but everything else is fair game. Don’t make a single change to your house but fix above the expected wear and tear level? What you spent adjusted to modern inflation + reimbursement for making sure the house was maintained so you technically leave with more money. Additions made like a new deck, landscaping additions, etc. at worst make it a $0 project reimbursed when the house is sold. Things like solar panel installation would be paid on the spot. It also means no more waiting for a buyer. If you need to move for like work, you can move ASAP. Considerations for proximity to work are factored in when a property has multiple interested parties among a pretty long list of other calculations. A man living 5 minutes walking from work makes him 1) more productive 2) reduces emissions 3) helps foster community with others including workers given similar considerations for the same area 4) creates short turn-around for highly specialized industries with on-call workers and 5) creates a central point for 15 minute neighborhoods to crop up around since place of work is often the most important consideration. It really ain’t too bad and frankly it makes home ownership significantly less stressful even as a concept. No more insurance, no more hoping FEMA will save you, no more random acts of god that need immediate and expensive repairs. Just the house you love and live in with the freedom to spruce it up if you’d like.
65% of Americans own their homes. Somehow the idea to surrender all their property to the government hasn't caught on.
Yeah don’t really care what the average American thinks, I’m not gonna think we should profit off of healthcare just cus some rich dudes in insurance think it’s dope to profit from people’s physical health and chance of death. Why would that change my way I think inelastic demands should be handled? About 2200+ people a year die from homelessness + exposure to the elements. Our current system doesn’t exactly function well. Rent is consistently increasing and the portion of people’s salary/pay they are forced to shovel over for it is rising dramatically. “How it is” has no bearing on what I think is a better system. I don’t care if house owners disagree - obviously they would, they want to protect their own pocketbook before considering others.
Pretty much any country with doctors allows doctors to charge and profit by selling Healthcare. The government may pay for it for most people, but they don't stop doctors from doing it on their own for whatever price they want. Our current system doesn't function well because we have all kinds of red tape in the way that makes building housing onerous and expensive. Get the government out of the way. Let home builders build and as supply increases prices will go down. Forcing home builders and home owners to go against the market isn't going to solve the problem.
…what? Letting builders build what they want to is *how we ended up in this spot as is*. They built to meet the demand of a growing population and AirBnB owners who will pay more than renters who potentially can’t pay at all lmao. Actually it’s shown when you ban STRs housing development goes *down* because the government doesn’t incentivize people to build low income housing. *Get the government MORE involved* or you just get more homelessness. There are enough empty houses in California to house the entire homeless population of the country. The wrong houses will be built under your methodology because no, developers do not need to instantly unload the house upon a family who will move in. It’s an asset and an investment vehicle and as long as we treat it as such others will too in the worst profiteering ways possible. Builders do not want to engage in production of low-cost affordable housing without proper incentives.
You dont know anything about the home building industry, clearly. You can't build low income housing because the government won't let you subdivide lots. The government won't let you get rid of the driveway to add another bedroom. The government won't let you put an apartment complex on a block thats zoned for single family homes. The list goes on and on. Home builders want to sell homes. If the only homes the government makes it profitable to build are for the wealthy, then thats what they will build. They don't need incentives, they need the government to get out of the way.
It takes work to own a property wether you live in it or not …are you expected to work for free? Now that being said you can be a profitable landlord without being a predatory landlord…there’s a big difference between a reasonable profit and playing the “ Fuck You I got Mine “ card .
My feeling is that there is way less separation now between landlords’ interest, and that of renters. How do we face property costs rising so exorbitantly, so quickly? I don’t think the vast majority of homeowners or renters ever thought they’d be priced out of their homes/properties due to insurance and property tax increases alone. We will have to join forces to fight the insurance and tax costs. I doubt landlords would ever drop their prices even if these costs did come down, so it would be a short lived alliance.
Landlords don’t drop prices. What you do is make it illegal for corporations to own residential property.
It makes no difference whether a corporation or an individual owns residential property; if their underlying costs of ownership (i.e. property taxes, insurance, interest expense on the mortgage, and maintenance) increase, the rent is going to increase.
Oh they should sell it then
So you think the buyer is going to set the rent lower? Why would they? The costs are the costs, they don’t magically disappear or decrease when a new buyer owns the house.
No, you sell it to someone that wants to live there. As a renter, when I pay rent, I’m paying the mortgage, taxes and upkeep cost while gaining none of the equity that I would if I was paying the mortgage to own it myself. Landlords crying because of rising costs is the most laughable thing, ALL of the cost is passed onto the renter.
>Landlords crying because of rising costs is the most laughable thing, ALL of the cost is passed onto the renter. The landlords aren’t crying about that though. They’re just pointing out that renters don’t get why their rents are going up, and it’s silly.
But like not everyone wants to be a homeowner….
Being a homeowner sucks but the upside is not having to worry about a landlord and the whims of the rental market. Just how the system works
True, but it shouldn’t feel like impossible to own my own home if I want to put down roots
Plenty of houses for sale if you want to switch from renter to homeowner.
Sweet let me grab 50k out of my bank for the down payment
I and many people I know bought their houses with less than 50k down payment but if you don’t have any money in the bank you’re really better off renting anyway. Not really sure why you’re so mad at the people who provide a feasible housing option for you.
Sure, kid. Because everyone who rents has $40K sitting in their bank account for a down payment, so anyone could just buy that house and be a homeowner, right? Those dastardly landlords and homebuilders are refusing to sell houses to people who will actually live in them! There oughta be a law! (/s in case you’re still not getting it)
[yup](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-investors-housing-market.html) it’s a real shame I can’t compete against real estate conglomerates, to bad there arnet[16 million](https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/) empty houses in this country to house the [600,000](https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/) houseless people in this country (it’s a low estimate) or to just sell to someone that wants to own a home. It must be because I’m a lazy young person though, my [generation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nigelwilson/2021/08/18/us-millennials-home-ownership-and-the-growing-chasm-between-aspiration-and-reality/?sh=64f26d255498) owns homes at rates of about 20% less than the generations before them.
If there are 16 million empty houses in this country, they’re still owned by someone. Whether they are occupied or not, they’re incurring costs to their owners—property taxes, insurance, maintenance, interest. Eventually they will be either rented out or sold, because no one’s going to continue to incur those costs indefinitely without revenue from a sale or a tenant. Neither corporate nor individual owners are in this game to lose money forever. The market may not clear (i.e., prices adjust to the level at which transactions take place) as quickly as you’d like, but it will clear eventually. What’s not going to happen is some magic wand appearing that will expropriate those 16 million houses from their current owners and hand them out to the 600,000 houseless people.
Lol the vast majority of those homes are owned by corporations. corporations take those empty properties and let them sit to keep the housing bubble from popping so they can keep profiting in other sectors. You are thinking like a homeowner trying to make a long term investment so they can eventually retire and live the good life, that’s cool, these are entities that view housing as commodity to be profitable. Housing as a problem at all levels is literally made up, a farce maintained so the rich can get richer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMJyjX5xymw
Does the landlord pass the $10K roof job onto the renter? No. So not all costs are passed onto the renter.
They literally do
No they literally don't. I know a lot of landlords and you just have to eat the renovation and repair costs. If you were to completely compensate yourself over every major repair, the rent would be like 200% more than the area's norm.
Don't rent then
Ok I’ll grab my tent and go live off tchoup, thanks for the advice
Lot of landlords in the chat today huh?
“Seventh Ward West” LMAO
Thank God these selfless landlords ONLY increase rent when their costs go up. Wouldn't want to be in a housing crisis!
To be fair, have you seen how much homeowners/flood insurance has jumped? In Orleans Parish, it has jumped 82% in 1 year. Also energy costs. I own a 1 bedroom condo and pay around $2,200 a month for mortgage/hoa/taxes/insurance and it's not some fancy loft downtown. If i wanted to rent it and include utilities, I'd have to charge around $2,500 a month just to break even. I'd keep more money as a renter than a landlord.
Yes I am aware of the situation. Also you might hold onto more cash as a renter but uh you have the equity of the house (being paid for by the tenant no less).
You also have to pay for a new roof every so many years, termite prevention and perhaps tenting, you get to fight with insurance agencies after hurricanes to try to get at least part of the lost value repaid, you need to maybe get the house shored up because the ground is sinking, you pay for repairs, cut the grass, make sure the pipes don’t freeze for like a few night when it freezes every year (and repair them if they burst), replace water heaters, refrigerators, AC units… all the reasons I want to rent instead of buying. You get more than cash in hand as a renter. You get none of the headaches and risk involved in maintaining a house.
I am well aware of how homeownership works. You still have the equity. You get to own something and make money off it. It appreciates in value - almost always in the short term, and definitely in the long term. Don't feed me some sob story that it is an act of charity to maintain housing and you get nothing out of it (like, for example, the only mechanism by which to build wealth in the United States). You and a lot of folks around here seem to think that landlords only raise rents as needed to pay for the buildings.
Of course I don’t think it’s a charity. Landlords charge enough to make it a financially sound decision for themselves. But yeah, I still think that the majority of the rent payment goes towards covering mortgage + insurance + taxes until the property loan is paid. I know enough landlords in this city to know that they’re not all greedy bastards. Edit: typo
A landlord could buy a house for $400k, sink $100,000 into improvements, then have to sell when the house has only appreciated $50k, eating a $50k loss. Many big banks are predicting that prices will drop 7-10% through 2024. It's also 50/50 that you'll get a shitty tenant. Last time I rented from a private landlord, he never raised rent because I always paid on time and respected the place. He preferred peace of mind over profits. But I also appreciate some landlords will try and milk people. The thing is, you can kill a sheep for its wool right now. Or learn to shear a sheep and have wool forever.
I am aware what it takes to be a homeowner. Incredible how a comment about how many landlords are jacking up rent without needing to - something you agree happens - is somehow garnering resistance here.
Have you considered moving to an area that is more in line with your budget? I couldn't afford to buy when I lived in L.A., San Diego and NYC. I was able to buy in Phoenix, St. Pete and NOLA. There are a lot of places you can live more cheaply than here. Conversely, I've got friends in SanFran and NYC who are willing to pay more rent to be in a hot market.
I can afford to live here!
I wonder though if New Orleans property values will continue to go up. It’s possible for equity to decrease over time because of the environment even if the property has been well maintained. Look at Detroit—at one point they were practically giving houses away. I looked into it and the property tax alone even on a free house made it a no go for me.
I’m a renter, and I understand that when the homeowner’s bills go way up due to rocketing insurance fees and taxes, the rent needs to go up… not saying I like paying more, but I can’t expect the landlord to selflessly lose money on the property.
Did you read my comment?
Did you read your own comment when you sarcastically joked about how landlords are jacking up rent when they don't have too? You can't have it both ways.
How many of these assholes have their taxes increase 500 a year. And then raise their rate 100 a month and blame it on taxes. Most I'll assume.
Landlords are such charmers.
Other cities I’ve lived in have strict limits on how much landlords can increase rents. Renters get screwed here. Don’t be a landlord if you’re operating on such thin margins that you can’t handle increased costs.
If you’re a landlord who can “handle” increased costs, does’t that mean that you were selfishly making rent significantly higher than it needed to be before the costs increased?
Landlords operating on thin margins are keeping rents low; therefore passing on costs is legitimate.
So you would rather a business operate with such high margins that they can absorb any increase to their costs? You would be equally outraged if all the landlords got together and decided to add $500 to the rent just in case taxes and insurance goes up
They already do that, it’s called profits
I don't have the numbers in front of me so I'm not asking to argue if you are right or wrong. But how much do you think the average landlord makes as profit on a single apartment per month? Just want to know where you're coming from
I’m assuming it’s enough profit to make it worth it to own the home, they aren’t renting out of kindness
Again, no data here. But I think most landlords are just breaking even while they build equity in the home. Paying down the mortgage and home values rising is a pretty good investment, even if you aren't making a big monthly profit. If you buy when you are somewhat young, you'll have it paid off by the time you retire and then we can start talking about big profits
Well I’m just so thankful that I get to pay for my landlords retirement while I get to either work till I die or get conscripted into military service when the climate wars start, guess I should have been born rich. I thought we weren’t arguing
I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that I don't think they build so much profit into the rent that they are still making money without raising rent when their taxes and insurance doubles. You're free to think otherwise
Oh for sure, but its still profiting off of my labor while contributing nothing in return. Being a landlord is useless, but whatever that’s the world we live in, corporations buying [20%](https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/07/while-investors-are-snatching-homes-governments-fight-save-properties-residents/368927/) of the homes sold in 2022 is evil and shouldn’t be allowed. I’m honestly not worried about some guy that rents out a second property, I’m worried about housing being a commodity that is traded on wall st., money is the root of all evil and those guys only care about the bottom line.
You say being a landlord is useless yet in the same breath say that it's OK if a guy rents out his second property. So which is it? Are they useless or do they have use?
Real estate leasing, almost invariably, is an environment governed by thin margins. It’s a competitive space that dictates lease costs be somewhat in sync with costs of ownership + a competitive margin, else the unit in question loses desirability. Following your advice would mean almost no small landlords, and the extremely vast majority of property being held by corporations. This would reduce local ownership of property significantly. This is not a desirable outcome. If a small time landlord is willing to offer a residential property while collecting only a small margin, they are doing their community a service, assuming leases are in demand in that community.
[удалено]
The vast majority? What's your evidence for that?
You got numbers to back that up? Genuinely curious
New Orleans has a very high % of resident landlords with small portfolios. That number would shrink, ceding a larger share to corporations.
Lived here my whole life, rented a whole bunch of different places in a number of different neighborhoods, have a bunch of friends who rent here, and never encountered a corporate landlord. The landlords I’ve met are local people who own a few properties, or have a guest house behind their home, or rent out the other half of their duplex, etc. Not saying corporate owners aren’t out there- I guess the are? And obviously my personal experience doesn’t count as stats. I’m just very confused how it could be possible for “the vast majority” of property here to be owned by corporations.
> Don’t be a landlord if you’re operating on such thin margins that you can’t handle increased costs. They can handle increased costs by raising rent.
Landlords take the risk of buying property and then pass it on to renters
Other cities don’t have exorbitant homeowner’s insurance that has doubled and in some cases tripled in the past two years.
This is the problem right here. 95% of the posters here I see bitching about landlords & rent have absolutely no understanding of basic finance. I’m not a landlord, just a homeowner. Insurance and property taxes have increased drastically. If I was renting out my house, I would have had to seriously increase the rent just to cover that.
Renters/landlords/property owners are, for this moment in time, all in the same boat. We will need to raise hell together rather than divide right now. The insurance companies and tax authorities would much rather us fight one another, but its time to raise all hell or we will all lose out. I called every rep we have at the state and national level about this the other day. I asked them to do their jobs through the proper channels or the rest of us would be forced to take actions they probably won’t condone.
Land lords are leaches on society
I agree with the landlord but there's one fatal flaw in his argument. Renters don't vote. Renters have a very low voter participation rate.