• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Love how you’re getting downvoted for making clear and logical arguments. Notice how no one has, or will have, a rebuttal?

    It ain’t the landlords kids, it’s the real estate empires fucking you over. The answer is federal legislation saying any single entity can only own, I dunno, 10 or 100 houses? Devil and details and all, but these megacorps should not be able to own 10,000 homes. And of course, we need exceptions for lenders like banks that have an inventory of foreclosed properties that don’t magically get insta purchased and fall off the books.

    Who am I kidding. There’s too much money to ever turn that boat around.

    • twopi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re solution doesn’t solve the thing you’re trying to solve.

      E.g.

      There is a “mom & pop” landlord with just 10 properties. But they don’t purchase anymore. Now there are 1000 such landlords. The landlords all incorporate and create a REIT that owns 10,000 homes. You have created a “megacorp” through just “mom and pop” landlords.

      What is the difference?

      The true answer is the abolition of landlords in favour of housing coops and community land trusts.

      To prove a point to you I’ll ask you a question.

      What is the difference between the goal of small landlords vs REITs and “megacorps” represented by row 4 of the graph found here?:

      https://www.smalllandlords.org/about-small-landlords/

      The group is a small landlord group from my city.