853
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/MbQYG

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 352 points 1 month ago

Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be... Check notes... That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.

[-] [email protected] 114 points 1 month ago

this is what is known as "a feature, not a bug"

[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago

SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you've lost even more rights!

[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago

In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid

[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] [email protected] 193 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Good. Bye bitch.

[-] xmunk 185 points 1 month ago

They'd flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?

Darn, that'd be so... awful? No, I was looking for awesome.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 141 points 1 month ago

Don’t threaten me with a good time.

[-] [email protected] 123 points 1 month ago

Is there a downside further in the article or is it just all positive news?

[-] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago

The downside is they’ll just be bought up by corporations who will be even shittier landlords.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 84 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 84 points 1 month ago
load more comments (23 replies)
[-] [email protected] 80 points 1 month ago

3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that "exceeded all expectations". Probably less than 1/3 of employees.

So if it's good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it's good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 80 points 1 month ago

Introduce additional legislation that limit property sales to corporations and I’ll donate to yer campaign

[-] [email protected] 73 points 1 month ago

Good. Fuck landlords. There should be a law they can only own multi family units.

[-] [email protected] 71 points 1 month ago

Good riddance

[-] [email protected] 67 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] [email protected] 60 points 1 month ago

I fail to see the downside.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 55 points 1 month ago

This would driving down the cost of housing because of an increase in inventory. Sell them to whom? Other landlords? Or would it be workers?

I think I just found my latest political campaign

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Private landlords would just sell to large corporate landlords who could profit with smaller margins.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago

That's-the-point.gif

[-] Lucidlethargy 47 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago

The push to change the county’s rent stabilization rules yet again was met with skepticism by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, who voted against the proposal. They said they were worried that the government was overburdening smaller property owners who rely on the rent to pay their bills.

LOOOOL

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago

Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can't have that!

[-] SuddenDownpour 38 points 1 month ago

Landlords will complain every time any government, local, regional or national, attempts to regulate their bullshit, and plenty of people will rush in to take their side because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls. Tax them to hell and back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Landlords say this would push them to sell.

Yay? Maybe then it could be sold to people who are desperate to get off of the rental merry-go-round.

As in, these homes will be owned by people who actually live in them; non-parasites who aren’t going to be sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working, working-class Americans.

And maybe instead of being landlords, these parasites could actually go out and get a job?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

Maybe everything should be capped at 3% since that's the standard BS bonus we all get each year.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago

Sounds like that’s by design. If they all wanna sell prices come down on that front as well. Sounds like it should be capped at 2 percent to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why would that push them to sell?

Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.

That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.

[-] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago

Because they're over leveraged. They've purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven't factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.

It's disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn't your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] prole 32 points 1 month ago

Won't someone think of the landlords?!?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago

I get the concern that small landlords will sell to big corpos who can handle the thinner margin, but for those smaller landlords that have paid off their property, or bought 10+ years ago, the margins are already super high, so the 3% cap isn’t going to cause them to sell when they have a $1200 mortgage and are collecting $2800 in rent, or no mortgage at all in many cases so pure profit more or less

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

So it's a win-win then?

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

I think I feel the world’s tiniest tear forming!..no, I just had to fart.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago

So, win-win. Got it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
853 points (98.4% liked)

News

21860 readers
3717 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS