this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
751 points (97.6% liked)

News

23367 readers
2752 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I feel like banning corporations from owning housing isn’t the panacea people expect it to be. It’s pretty impractical when you start talking about larger buildings and mixed use housing, and I’m not convinced it’s really a big driver of the problem.

I think a steep land value tax is a more workable solution. It incentivizes anyone who holds non-productive property (vacant homes in this case) to either make better use of the land or sell it. This also has the benefit of impacting individuals who own second homes or have mostly empty airbnbs.

Property taxes are insufficient for this purpose because they are generally based on the value of the home rather than just the land, so not only are they easier to game, but it disincentivizes improving the property.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Crazy idea.

How about instead of corporations owning the unit, maybe the person who lives in the unit gets to own part of it.

I know crazy.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Owning part of a larger building is actually much more complicated than simply owning a house. I’m not sure everyone would actually want that even if they could buy the unit they live in at a low price.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I almost bought a condo in a multi-story building a couple of years ago and I'm glad as hell I didn't. It was a one-bedroom unit for $125K, which is fine except that the monthly condo fees are $1000 (which includes utilities, at least), property taxes plus insurance are another $400, and the last three consecutive years residents have been hit with a special assessment of about $10K - which means I would have been paying around $2500 a month to live in a one-bedroom apartment that I'd already paid $125K for.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The biggest issue with corporations owning low income multifamily housing is that they act like slumlords. When you have nowhere else to go and the landlord won't fix major issues then it takes a toll on you. When a kid sees this growing up, then it leads to antisocial behavior. Investors think that "passive investment" means no input at all when it requires a great deal of active management if contracts are being followed. They just know that the residents have no reasonable way to enforce the contract.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are corporations more likely to be slumlords? Pretty much everyone I’ve ever known who owns a rental property has been a complete asshole, but I’ve only known a few.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Look up Monarch Investment

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I agree about taxes. Tax the ever loving bejesus out of vacant rentals or speculative residential real estate. That will keep them from buying in the first place or deeply incentivize them to keep them rented out.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I disagree. No need to force development to destroy natural landscapes just to avoid a tax. Simply tax multiple residential properties somewhat exponemtially.

100%, 133%, 200%, 350%, 500% or something

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Generally it’s not destroying undeveloped land, but fixing up dilapidated houses so that they are livable.

Having a progressive tax based on number of homes owned may work, but you would need to rewrite quite a bit of real estate law to make it actually effective. Obviously corporations would not be allowed to own houses to avoid people owning through shell companies, but you would also have to draw a line so corporations could own larger apartment complexes and mixed use buildings. You also do want builders to be able to temporarily own houses for the purpose of building and selling them as well as corporate flippers.

Frankly, I think it’s too complicated to expect on a national level.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Right.

Owning one or two residential properties is fine, more is problematic.

I say "two" to handle the very common case of children putting their parents' homes in their own name because Medicare clawback rules will take the home after they die if you don't do it early enough.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 2 points 4 months ago

The Medicare clawback crap is why we can't expect to fix one issue with capitalism without addressing all the issues simultaneously. Can't just raise minimum wage because landleeches will raise rents. Can't just have universal healthcare because a lot of people would become unemployed when the insurance industry dies its overdue painful death.

Universal healthcare, student loan cancellation (and free state university), UBI, and the elimination of for-profit housing. All within one president's term to have a chance of sticking past four years.

[–] insufferableninja@lemdro.id 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

exponentially would be e. g. 100%, 1000%, 10 000%, etc.

you meant geometricallly

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

No, i was picturing an exponential with scale factors and coefficemts.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Some countries have a large yearly tax if you leave a house vacant for longer than 6 months or a year without a valid reason. More countries need to do this.

Not sure about the USA, but it's a big problem in Australia. Foreign investors (that don't live in Australia nor have any intent of moving to Australia) buy properties then just hold them as speculative assets. They don't want tenants, because they don't want to go through all that effort. All they want to do is hold them and watch the value go up, in the same way you'd hold stock or Bitcoin.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, that does feel like it could help reduce housing prices. There is no such tax in most parts of the US, but San Francisco passed a vacancy tax that just went into effect this year. If that works out hopefully other municipalities look into a similar scheme.