854
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 194 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Good. Bye bitch.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 185 points 2 years 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)
[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 123 points 2 years ago

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

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years 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 2 years ago
[-] AshMan85@lemmy.world 84 points 2 years ago
load more comments (23 replies)
[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 80 points 2 years 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)
[-] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 80 points 2 years ago

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

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 73 points 2 years ago

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

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 71 points 2 years ago

Good riddance

[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 67 points 2 years ago
[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.run 65 points 2 years ago
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 61 points 2 years ago

I fail to see the downside.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Juice@midwest.social 54 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago

That's-the-point.gif

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 47 points 2 years ago
[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 years 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 2 years ago

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

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 39 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 years ago

Won't someone think of the landlords?!?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hawanja@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago

Landlords say that would push them to see

Good. Do it. DO IT.

[-] Poot@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 2 years ago
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 27 points 2 years ago
[-] misterp@lemmy.today 27 points 2 years 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 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

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] BCat70@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

So, win-win. Got it.

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

News

36160 readers
3687 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. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS