In order to ensure that everybody has a home, doesn't it make sense to not have a sort of situation where one person owns more than one house in the first place? Private land as an idea sucks ass, I'd much prefer a situation where everybody is guaranteed dignified living conditions where nobody in particular owned the land
You hear plenty of stories about friendly, helpful landlords, but are those landlords ever friendly enough to just *give* you the property? Like, as a gift? Because they've realized just how wicked a thing it is to ask 2/3rds of a poor family's income for a decade or more for no other reason than because they can?
fuck landlords fuck capitalism
Land ownership itself, as a concept, sucks. Ideally, local communities would have final say on what happens on the land on which they reside, and those communities would organize with others such that they all come to a consensus on things that need to be addressed globally, and of course there would be the need for experts in social and environmental impact analysis for any proposed project, but like nowhere in this system does any individual person own anything other than what they need. Luxuries, complicated scientific or construction equipment, roads, schools, land itself would be shared. You would have a home, everybody needs a home, everybody gets a home.
The vast majority of wealth is tied up in an extremely small number of billionaires, yes, but this does not excuse landlords from being the leeches they are
gonna buy some land and then just make a commune on it
@starwall people will say black people don’t need reparations because they were never slaves but also pass down the same cottage on nantucket for 6 generations
@starwall your broader point is good, but: according to https://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb96_01.pdf, in 1996 half of all rental properties are mortgaged. it's not like those landlords are just collecting the money and doing nothing, they're paying it to the bank, who loaned them money to construct it
the *real* question is: why is the landlord there, why is the renter not just paying the bank? you get some benefits of it (if you paid the bank directly and your place burns down because your neighbor was a jackass you'd be out a place to live, you've lost the value of that apartment, *and* still owe the bank money, but if you've got a landlord then it's their responsibility to fix it), but it's probably not worth it imo
@hierarchon @starwall i think some of this ignores how housing is used as a commodity and therefore the set of landlords not mapping onto the set of developers 1:1. the bank loaned *someone* money to construct it, but there's a long chain of speculators and middlemen that jack up pricing so they can each take a nasty cut in the middle. furthermore, banks fund projects that'll be profitable for the bank, encouraging investment that doesn't fulfill people's basic needs, just the needs of people with money (see luxury condo development in downtowns with high homelessness). finally, a landlord's "responsibility" is almost entirely vacated legally by their stranglehold on local governments, planning laws, rent control ordinances, etc. getting a landlord to own up to that responsibility might only ever happen if they have a personal stake - like your bathroom dripping into their bedroom - which precious few have.
so, more real questions, plus it's 25 years and 2 economic crises since 1996.
@starwall i am amused by the irony that, on my tl, immediately beneath this specific toot is a boost of this one https://botsin.space/@starwall_e/104609903519090708
A cool and chill place for cool and chill people.