• Nora@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Except this is real. Land"lords" are parasites on our society. They could easily be replaced by an overseeing body or really nothing at all would even be better.

    • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Facts. There’s really no excuse for being a landlord. Even the “mom and pop” ones people are sucking off in this thread are a fucking scourge who are hoarding resources and exploiting the working class. I don’t care how sweet and polite they might be about it.

      The only good landlord is…

      Edit: Blocklist fodder itt, so many greasy bootlickers…

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s hilarious how many people are trying to defend landlords like they’re actually somehow good for society.

        Outside of the rare landlord-as-a-roomate to afford the mortgage scenario, landlords and renting are a solution to a problem they’re creating themselves. They benefit property owners and developers, while creating housing environments that encourage the rest of us to be dependent on them until they day we die.

        • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it’s pretty disgusting and disappointing to see that here. I just had some bootlicker write a novel about how his father in law was “one of the good ones.”

          Capitalism has rotted their minds.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Ελληνικά
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        My FiL owns a few properties that he rents out. He “retired” at 49. Now he spends most of his day, every day, either improving empty/not ready properties, or maintaining the currently rented properties. The people he rents to simply cannot afford a house, at any price, or they do not have the time and skills or maintain their own home. He’s only evicted one person in his time as a landlord, literally because the tenant didn’t pay for 6 months, turned the property into a drug den and went on the run when the police tried to serve a warrant.

        I get that landlords on the surface level can be seen as predatory, and I agree that there are a disproportionate amount of scum and anti-humam business drones in the rental business; but its important to remember that there are genuine people who buy, maintain and rent out properties so that their community isn’t rife with dangerous dilapidated buildings filled with squatters.

        • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anyone who buys housing to rent it out is a part of the problem. Housing is a basic human right, not an investment.

          Unless your fil was providing housing for free, fuck him, and fuck off with the classist shit about squatters. I’d take a million squatters over one landlord.

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            Ελληνικά
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The housing literally wouldnt exist if he didn’t maintain them. It takes work to keep a building standing. He deserves to get paid for his work right?

            • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The people who owned and lived in it would maintain it, because it would be their home and they own it. He only has to maintain it because he’s getting other people to pay for it for him as an investment. The building wouldn’t just poof disappear if it were owned by a housing coop, and people could actually be earning equity with their living situation instead of paying for your FIL to spend 95% of his time fucking around doing nothing and 5% fixing leaks or whatever.

      • null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Make everything black and white and then plug your ears when anyone brings in nuance.

        Sounds about right.

        • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Landlords are leeches. They’re not valid by any stretch of the imagination. Even the “good ones” are exploitative.

          I’m just not willing to downplay this just because someone has a hard time accepting that a friend or loved one who’s a landlord is a colossal piece of excrement.

      • mke_geek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        46
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everything you said is a lie. There’s no exploitation. Paying rent is trading money for a service.

        • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What service do landlords offer? Every property I’ve ever rented myself or seen from my friends is falling apart and shitty for an insane amount of money each month. If landlords charged half as much as they do maybe you’d have a leg to stand on.

            • instamat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No they don’t, they charge people to live in property that they own. That’s not “providing” housing, that’s profiting off of someone else’s need.

              • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                20
                ·
                1 year ago

                Rental property owners charge for the service of providing housing. Home Depot charges for the service of renting their tools. The bouncy house places charge for the service of renting their bouncy houses.

                • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  shelter is a human necessity. It is wrong to hoard shelter while there are people who have none.

                  • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Rental property owners don’t hoard shelter. The whole point is to provide housing to individuals and families.

                • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You aren’t doing yourself any favors bringing home depot into this, the owners are also greedy cunts.

                  There’s also a huge difference between something that protects you from the elements and renting a tool. There is no fundamental need for a tool, there is a fundamental need for shelter.

                  With how invested you are on your side, I wouldn’t be surprised to see you admit that you’re a landlord.

                  • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Home Depot is just one example. Any other example works.

                    People can grow their own food but choose to use the grocery store. The grocery store charges more for the food than they pay for it, because they’re providing a service.

                    Pharmacies sell medication and people buy from them. They are providing a service of having all the medication in one place.

                    People trade money for goods OR services. That’s how the economy operates.

            • GlitzyArmrest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So they’re giving the housing to those in need for free, or at the very least at cost? That would be “providing” housing.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ew. What a gross little parasite they are… Like watching a leech suck the blood out of a person and saying at least it lowers their blood pressure…

            They are my first block on Lemmy just cause they are clearly mentally deranged

        • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What service? They own something I need to live. Landlording is inherintly exploitative, there is really no way I can think of that renting out a property is ethical.

          Before you say no I can’t live in a tent or my car that’s a crime. Sure technically I could but I wouldn’t be able to park or put up a tent without tresspassing or violating a no parking order, also not allowed to live in a caravan park either.

          • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            They provide a place to live that you can move into almost immediately with little upfront money, and with no worry about any maintenance costs that are associated with owning a property.

            It’s very useful for social mobility as it allows people to move around for work relatively easy if they plan on relocating, especially when they’re young.

            Buying a property not only takes a sizeable upfront amount of capital but it’s also a very slow process. I think it took 6 or 7 months for us to go from putting an offer in to getting the keys.

            That’s the service and that’s why a rental market is important. I’m not defending scrupulous landlords here, they’re 100% an issue and there definitely needs to be changes to address that.

            • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Problem is that the upfront cost for renting is still steep. One months rent as a deposit (which 9/10 you won’t even get back even if you left the property pristine) on top of your first months rent is quite expensive, and most mortgage payments people make are also usually cheaper than what they would pay renting but they do not have the startup capital to even get on the ladder.

              you also have to ask permission to even decorate the place and more than likely if you do you then have to put it back the way it was. So you are stuck with lovely magnolia walls, and if you want to redo the bathroom you best be careful that the landlord doesn’t decide your renovations increased the value and charge you more rent because of it.

              Of the people I know who rent, which is basically everyone in my age bracket, they want to own a property but cannot afford to it’s a massive issue.

              I agree buying properties takes ages I cannot dispute that, and you can still get screwed by unscrupulous sellers.

              The place I live now is the best rented property I have and that is only because the estate agents actually listen to me and fix issues promptly. Which as far as I am concerned is the bare minimum which most just don’t do, you also have no recourse because the landlord has way more power over you.

              Don’t get me started on flat inspections every 3 months is a piss take.

          • mke_geek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, owning rental property is not exploitative. It gives people a choice of where to live. No one rental property is required for anyone to live – there’s millions of choices in the United States alone for places to live.

            And yes, camping is legal. People camp every single day in the United States. And yes, people own RVs. They live in them and travel around the country. This is legal. Both of these give even more options for places to stay.

            • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It doesn’t though you get a property you don’t own and you enrich someone else instead of making enough money to actually own a property which you won’t be able to afford anyway

              Good for the USA I suppose not for me though, and that falls apart if the person wants to live in or near a city

              • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Paying rent is trading money for a service.

                Owning a property means shelling out money, sometimes unexpectedly. The furnace goes out in the middle of winter? Better fix that quick. Don’t have the money? Let it get to freezing now your pipes burst and that’s just thousands of dollars more to spend on top of the thousands of dollars to replace the furnace.

                • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If I owned the property I could get the boiler fixed faster but seeing now I have to wait on the landlord and hope he understands the urgency, or I fix his property and good luck for me getting that money reimbursed.