Assuming this comment isn’t ironic: there is no such thing as a good landlord. Landlords are parasitic middlemen who live by leeching off the value created by workers. They contribute no value whatsoever.
This is admitted even in mainstream economics, its termed rent-seeking.
This has nothing to do with being a “good” person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I’m not saying it’s just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I’d realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no “good person” simply owns a residential property that they don’t live in.
I know I’m not who you’re replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
They kinda are necessary, given how they’re the byproduct of capitalism’s private property model and its commodification.
You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that’s overly idealistic given how that’d go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.
In other words, they’re necessary not because they’re useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.
I just found an article (from 1955) by my grandma where she argued that she prefers renting over building a house because she has more freedom that way. She can move more easily because she doesn’t have to find a buyer for her house, she doesn’t have to worry about something breaking because that’s on the landlord to fix and she doesn’t have to go into debt to live somewhere.
As far as I know she never owned a home, always rented. But all her kids bought houses.
That does sound like a regulation problem in the capitalist hellacape that is the USA more than anything. I live in The Netherlands and evicting someone here is very difficult. A landlord needs to make his case in front of a judge and everything. There’s one reason with which they can evict a tenant with a bit more ease and that’s to use the property themselves, but they need to prove why they need it all of a sudden. And even then they need to pay the tenant roundabouts €7000 to help with the move.
How do people still argue that landlords are useful and necessary?
By being landlords or personally knowing landlords.
I swear my uncle is a good landlord. Keeps prices low, I swear he doesn’t rip off his renters. He would never do that.
If there were as many good landlords as I have heard this story we wouldn’t have any problems Kyle, sit the fuck back down.
Assuming this comment isn’t ironic: there is no such thing as a good landlord. Landlords are parasitic middlemen who live by leeching off the value created by workers. They contribute no value whatsoever.
This is admitted even in mainstream economics, its termed rent-seeking.
Suppose a person owns an apartment building. What’s the process they should follow to behave as a good person should?
This has nothing to do with being a “good” person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
No ones acquires an entire apartment building in the first place with the purpose of living in it. They do it to become rent-seeking parasites.
But to your hypothetical, they could create a co-op as @queermunist@lemmy.ml mentioned.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I’m not saying it’s just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I’d realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no “good person” simply owns a residential property that they don’t live in.
I know I’m not who you’re replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
My parents own multiple rental properties and completely straight face told me it’s a charity cause they rent to people who can’t afford homes.
Meanwhile I’m engaging with my mutual aid group every week handing out about 400 meals, and survival gear for people who can’t afford anything.
Glad their fucking charity has turned enough profit to pay off the rentals, their main home, and their vacation spot though. /s
The people saying that are usually hoping to become landlords themselves.
They kinda are necessary, given how they’re the byproduct of capitalism’s private property model and its commodification.
You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that’s overly idealistic given how that’d go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.
In other words, they’re necessary not because they’re useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.
deleted by creator
I just found an article (from 1955) by my grandma where she argued that she prefers renting over building a house because she has more freedom that way. She can move more easily because she doesn’t have to find a buyer for her house, she doesn’t have to worry about something breaking because that’s on the landlord to fix and she doesn’t have to go into debt to live somewhere.
As far as I know she never owned a home, always rented. But all her kids bought houses.
Sure, but it sounds like she’s never been evicted for no reason.
And her rent probably didn’t take 100 hours of labor a month.
That does sound like a regulation problem in the capitalist hellacape that is the USA more than anything. I live in The Netherlands and evicting someone here is very difficult. A landlord needs to make his case in front of a judge and everything. There’s one reason with which they can evict a tenant with a bit more ease and that’s to use the property themselves, but they need to prove why they need it all of a sudden. And even then they need to pay the tenant roundabouts €7000 to help with the move.
But but who will extract the remaining surplus value that the employers missed?
People? Like IRL? I’ve only ever seen it happen online.