[deleted]
San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
31–40 of 118 posts
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#32Just a few years ago people were being treated like garbage in SF by landlords. Friends were complaining of landlords asking for thousands and looking at you like they are doing you a favor and that you should be thankful to be living in their property.
Payback time.
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#33Sucks that SF is decay. But about the title - That's VERY Good! Humanity and society does not need an occupation identified as a "landlord". Housing should not be an investment ever.
There is a difference between building a building that is actually providing housing to a local area and this bullshit where you buy property and just let it sit empty as an investment vehicle. The latter is actively harmful and essentially freeloading off the growth/work of the local community and the former is beneficial.
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#34I'm totally in favor of a vacancy tax, every city should have them. Dude is like, "People are just leaving to live cheaper elsewhere, we can't fill these units!". Have you tried lowering the rent? Of course not.
But the tax should be weighted. The higher the crime rate, the lower the tax rate.
So now the city has to do something about crime, littering, defecation, intoxication, looting, etc. otherwise they get no money.
But that won't happen ever because the voting criteria in SF is "donkey people good, elephant people bad". The donkey people have no incentive to be competent because they take their vote for granted.
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you don't have enough money to buy real estate right now but you have enough to rent an apartment. If you don't want to be homeless, from whom do you acquire a lease?
If rent was illegal, you would buy.
Buy what? If rent were illegal, there would be far less housing because most people cannot (or will not) save enough capital to create or buy their own.
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#36There are other options that are better than a simple rental such as a lease option or a land contract sale. The renter /purchaser ends up owning the property and the seller/landlord can get rid of his property at a decent price in a falling market.
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#37Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you don't have enough money to buy real estate right now but you have enough to rent an apartment. If you don't want to be homeless, from whom do you acquire a lease?
For the landloard to make money your rent is higher than what it takes to 'own' the land, usually in the form of a mortgage. Otherwise its almost always a second (or third) plot that is outrightly owned by the landlord, which means they dont need it and itd be better for you to just be able to buy it. Also the even better answer is public housing.
> For the landloard to make money your rent is higher than what it takes to 'own' the land, usually in the form of a mortgage.
The landlord can make money by investing capital and then getting a return equivalent to the interest you'd pay to the bank to borrow that amount of money.
> Otherwise its almost always a second (or third) plot that is outrightly owned by the landlord, which means they dont need it and itd be better for you to just be able to buy it.
But you can buy it. You just go to the owner and buy it from them.
What are you supposed to do if you can't afford that right now?
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you don't have enough money to buy real estate right now but you have enough to rent an apartment. If you don't want to be homeless, from whom do you acquire a lease?
Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.
Is there any place on this earth where “public housing” was anything but an unmitigated disaster that was used simply to corral “the have nots” away from “the haves”?
Whatever the solution is, it’s damn sure is not public housing.
Re: San Francisco Landlords may lose everything [video]
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but probably that "fulfilling basic human needs shouldn't be for profit" I'm a colossal fan of co-ops and credit unions for this reason.
So if you fulfill basic human needs you aren't allowed to make a profit but every other industry can?
Sounds good to me.