854
submitted 3 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/MbQYG

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 352 points 3 weeks ago

Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be... Check notes... That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.

[-] eee@lemm.ee 113 points 3 weeks ago

this is what is known as "a feature, not a bug"

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 3 weeks ago

SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you've lost even more rights!

[-] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 31 points 3 weeks ago

In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid

[-] General_Effort@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 194 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Good. Bye bitch.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 185 points 3 weeks ago

They'd flood the market with properties shifting us along the supply curve to allow younger people to afford properties?

Darn, that'd be so... awful? No, I was looking for awesome.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Fixbeat@lemmy.ml 141 points 3 weeks ago

Don’t threaten me with a good time.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 123 points 3 weeks ago

Is there a downside further in the article or is it just all positive news?

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago

The downside is they’ll just be bought up by corporations who will be even shittier landlords.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 84 points 3 weeks ago
[-] AshMan85@lemmy.world 84 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (23 replies)
[-] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 80 points 3 weeks ago

Introduce additional legislation that limit property sales to corporations and I’ll donate to yer campaign

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 80 points 3 weeks ago

3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that "exceeded all expectations". Probably less than 1/3 of employees.

So if it's good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it's good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 73 points 3 weeks ago

Good. Fuck landlords. There should be a law they can only own multi family units.

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 71 points 3 weeks ago

Good riddance

[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 67 points 3 weeks ago
[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.run 65 points 3 weeks ago
[-] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 65 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 61 points 3 weeks ago

I fail to see the downside.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Juice@midwest.social 54 points 3 weeks ago

This would driving down the cost of housing because of an increase in inventory. Sell them to whom? Other landlords? Or would it be workers?

I think I just found my latest political campaign

[-] person420@lemmynsfw.com 20 points 3 weeks ago

Private landlords would just sell to large corporate landlords who could profit with smaller margins.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 50 points 3 weeks ago

That's-the-point.gif

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 47 points 3 weeks ago
[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 42 points 3 weeks ago

The push to change the county’s rent stabilization rules yet again was met with skepticism by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, who voted against the proposal. They said they were worried that the government was overburdening smaller property owners who rely on the rent to pay their bills.

LOOOOL

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 40 points 3 weeks ago

Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can't have that!

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 39 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Landlords say this would push them to sell.

Yay? Maybe then it could be sold to people who are desperate to get off of the rental merry-go-round.

As in, these homes will be owned by people who actually live in them; non-parasites who aren’t going to be sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working, working-class Americans.

And maybe instead of being landlords, these parasites could actually go out and get a job?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 38 points 3 weeks ago

Landlords will complain every time any government, local, regional or national, attempts to regulate their bullshit, and plenty of people will rush in to take their side because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls. Tax them to hell and back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 36 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe everything should be capped at 3% since that's the standard BS bonus we all get each year.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Cornpop@lemmy.world 36 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like that’s by design. If they all wanna sell prices come down on that front as well. Sounds like it should be capped at 2 percent to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 33 points 3 weeks ago

Won't someone think of the landlords?!?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Why would that push them to sell?

Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.

That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.

[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 37 points 3 weeks ago

Because they're over leveraged. They've purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven't factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.

It's disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn't your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hawanja@lemmy.world 30 points 3 weeks ago

Landlords say that would push them to see

Good. Do it. DO IT.

[-] Poot@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 3 weeks ago
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 27 points 3 weeks ago
[-] misterp@lemmy.today 27 points 3 weeks ago

The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] UmeU@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

I get the concern that small landlords will sell to big corpos who can handle the thinner margin, but for those smaller landlords that have paid off their property, or bought 10+ years ago, the margins are already super high, so the 3% cap isn’t going to cause them to sell when they have a $1200 mortgage and are collecting $2800 in rent, or no mortgage at all in many cases so pure profit more or less

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago

I think I feel the world’s tiniest tear forming!..no, I just had to fart.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 weeks ago

So it's a win-win then?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
854 points (98.4% liked)

News

21693 readers
4237 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. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


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