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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 352 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (54 children)
  • [–] 61 points 2 years ago (41 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • load more comments (19 replies)
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 194 points 2 years ago*

    Good. Bye bitch.

  • source
  • [–] 186 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [+] 141 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 124 points 2 years ago (10 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 84 points 2 years ago (23 children)
    load more comments (23 replies)
    [–] 80 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 80 points 2 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 73 points 2 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 71 points 2 years ago

    Good riddance

  • source
  • [–] 67 points 2 years ago
    [–] 65 points 2 years ago
    [+] 65 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
    load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 61 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I fail to see the downside.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 54 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 50 points 2 years ago

    That's-the-point.gif

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago
    [–] 42 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 40 points 2 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 38 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago
    [–] 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Won't someone think of the landlords?!?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    Landlords say that would push them to see

    Good. Do it. DO IT.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    So, win-win. Got it.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›