You must log in or register to comment.

CustosEcheveria t1_jdbaai2 wrote

Landlords are social parasites


Snaz5 t1_jdd4wv1 wrote

Can’t say Mao didnt have at least ONE good idea


pebkacerrorspersist t1_jddkjw4 wrote

How is this #1 in Controversial? WTH, reddit...

Edit: I'm getting downvoted by landlords. This is a badge of honor, you scum. lol


Snaz5 t1_jddxp0r wrote

A lot of redditors are landlords. Unsurprising since landlords dont do anything all day so they have plenty of time to browse reddit


Ban-Circumcision-Now t1_jdnxl7c wrote

The core problem is the homeowners/existing landlords constantly vote to restrict additional housing, this is what makes it so landlords can keep increasing rent and makes housing unaffordable.

The comment is controversial because it is looking at a side effect and pretending it’s the root cause


powersv2 t1_jdccsgw wrote

At least put that in quotes and quote Adam Smith if you’re going yo steal a line from someone else’s labor.


[deleted] t1_jdbfiv2 wrote



CustosEcheveria t1_jdbg85j wrote

Getting harder for people to do that when corporations are buying 90% of the single family homes every year


ultima-ratio-populi t1_jdbrv00 wrote

If people were free they wouldn't pay rent. Not every country is afflicted with rampant landlordism. Countries with high home ownership have negligible levels of homelessness. Hoarding the housing supply is not ethical. If you take something everybody needs and put it on the market, the price will necessarily go too high for some people to afford it. Something everybody needs, you're advocating for denying that for the sake of preservation of the livelihood of worthless parasites. The threat of homelessness to preserve profiteering, that's your idea of freedom.


RGB755 t1_jdbxpqi wrote

You don’t need crazy high home ownership rates to get the situation under control though. In Germany they’re working on a temporary rent cap to go on top of existing market regulations.

In France they’ve passed laws to tie rent increases to energy efficiency investments.

Plenty of sensible approaches exist to regulate the rental market, some countries just don’t have the political will to use them.


Ban-Circumcision-Now t1_jdnxsi5 wrote

The problem in The U.S. is that we severely restrict high density housing that would makes houses/rentals more affordable

Rent control would only further reduce new apartment/ housing construction, who is going to take the huge expenses and risk to build new housing when they can’t make any money from it


[deleted] t1_jdckkst wrote



ishitfrommymouth t1_jdctt0n wrote

Are you familiar with supply and demand? Without landlords buying up shit tons of properties the supply vastly increases and the demand drops at the same time. Making the homes much more reasonably priced.


Ban-Circumcision-Now t1_jdny3l1 wrote

Supply and demand still applies and now you’ve created a situation where people can’t rent if they want to, so now you are locking people into an area/home

Realtors would love your idea but wow that’s a huge expense you’ve added to people that move around a lot


kathodus t1_jdbjl3g wrote

That's not how parasites work.


[deleted] t1_jdcl2zl wrote



17times2 t1_jdd0hfc wrote

Landlording wouldn't be as bad if you couldn't hoard properties, if fixes and repairs were quick and consistent, and rent wasn't 200% of what a mortgage is.


[deleted] t1_jdddxab wrote



17times2 t1_jddgavf wrote

> No idea why you think someone in real estate is "hoarding" properties if they own more than (some number) of properties.

Because that's the definition of hoarding.

> Go build as many properties as you want, it is a free country.

Properties are land, not houses. And the only people building on multiple properties are the wealthy. I don't know what kind of argument you think you're making, but "let people with money do anything they want with it with no limits" is about as piss-poor a decision you could possibly make in a capitalism-based nation.

> What someone's mortgage payment is is utterly irrelevant to what they should charge for rent.

It's partially relevant as it tends to sway rent and mortgage prices in the area.

> Some landlords own their property free and clear, does that mean they should charge less than someone who has a big mortgage on a similar property?

They're all going to float to a similar price for equivalent homes based on the area price so this isn't even a valid question. They could absolutely afford to, but they're not going to. You're asking if just because it's more moral, that they should be compelled?


[deleted] t1_jddycom wrote



17times2 t1_jde2kry wrote

> You bring stuff up like saying rent 200% of mortgage and then admit the mortgage amount is irrelevant

I just brought up the exceedingly high cost of rent from the renter's side. You decided to make it about the landlord being coerced to rent for lower based on their situation. They don't have anything to do with each other even though you keep attempting to conflate them.

> Then you make up a definition of hoarding that is also silly,

Sigh. Maybe this is cute for you, but it's just sad for me to have to interact with.

> having 10 $1 bills is not hoarding and neither is owning 10 rental properties

I can tell you must be a landlord, because no ordinary person would make such an asinine comparison of $10 to 10 rental properties. $10 isn't enough for a combo meal at McDonalds. 10 rental properties requires a literal management group. If you have so many rentals they have to be organized, you have too many.

> Hertz isn’t hoarding cars by having a rental fleet, Marriot isnt hoarding hotel rooms by owning Thousands of hotel rooms

These aren't properties, these are assets. Try and keep your comparisons in the same ballpark.

> landlord isn’t hoarding because they rent out more than 0 rental properties

> You want to control people with what they buy, I don’t. You give no rational explanations just the usual mistaken belief that somehow you are entitled to something just because.

> You utterly ignore reality, wanting there to be no landlords

Are you even responding to my posts anymore, or just arguing with the increasingly agitated voice in your head? I brought up "no hoarding" and what you instead decided to read was "NO LANDLORDS. NO RENTALS FOR ANYONE."

You understand what "too much" means, right? You know what "greedy" means, right? It means you are taking more than your share. It's the core of the whole "1%" movement. I'm curious if you have a reason that you want to encourage that the richest people in this country get richer off the most finite resource we have (land) while everything gets smaller and more expensive for everyone else. Are you just ignorant to how capitalism works, or do you genuinely just enjoy people having less money and less property?

What it seems to come down to is: I believe that landlords are probably fine when they don't control excessive amounts of land. You believe landlords are fine and that they SHOULD control excessive amounts of land.


yblame t1_jdbfhns wrote

All in the name of $$$$

Your apartment got a lick of trendy paint and a 'granite' counter and we raised the rent out of your reach to pay for it. Good luck everybody!


SamurottX t1_jdckamc wrote

Wait for them to replace things that were old but sturdy with literally the cheapest possible replacement (that's worse in every way except now it's painted gray) and act like that's an upgrade.


Thr0waway3691215 t1_jdekqbm wrote

Newly "Remodeled" apartments means they got rid of the old hood that actually vented outside; put down new paint; and laid down linoleum everywhere there was carpet before.

At least, that's what it meant for the apartments I moved into last year.


Roboticpoultry t1_jdcejof wrote

You just perfectly described why I couldn’t stay in my Boystown/North Halsted apartment after college. The apartment was a dump while I lived there but I’d kill to pay that little for that location again


kennyminot t1_jdiiyqs wrote

Holy crap! This is getting national attention? I used to live in this complex.


TurningTwo t1_jdb653s wrote

Societies collapse when the gap between the haves and have-nots becomes non-sustainable. Provable back to the Mayans and likely earlier.


Mid-CenturyBoy t1_jdbodr1 wrote

Honestly I just hope that these assholes realize they did it to themselves when their property is nothing more than ash and they have to wait for their insurance payouts and miss out on rent payments.


squatch42 t1_jdcbzoh wrote

Loss of rent is covered.


Mid-CenturyBoy t1_jde1sq3 wrote

🤷🏻‍♂️then idk. Maybe we just salt the earth so they can’t grow anything and these properties look barren and ugly.


OnThe45th t1_jdchbdw wrote

Yeah, until a family dies in the fire. Stop and think before wishing destruction and harm others. The owners would MAKE money if that happened


antichain t1_jdcupl0 wrote

> Societies collapse when the gap between the haves and have-nots becomes non-sustainable. Provable back to the Mayans and likely earlier.

I'd like to see some citations on this. Feudalism lasted a pretty long time...

EDIT: only Reddit would a request for citations be seen as an affront to the hivemind worth downvoting...


TSL4me t1_jdcr2y0 wrote

When people talk about the for profit college they rarely mention the huge real estate investment companies that leech off students desperate for housing. Isla Vista where ucsb is located is owned by essentially 4 companies. They are so powerfull they can swing local elections and have huge influence on the supposedly public university. Its a giant grift.


DrFrocktopus t1_jdcz5ow wrote

This is why I support caps on assets under management (AUM) for public universities. You essentially have these ostensibly education-focused institutions that are really operating as publicly owned real-estate/investment conglomerates building endowments they're unlikely to ever use. I mean look at how universities responded during covid, they didnt tap their endowments to make up for revenue shortfalls they just forced kids back to school to prop up their tenament empires despite it representing a major public health risk. Meanwhile, their educational programs are declining as the focus is less on hiring qualified faculty and more on functioning as degree mills so they can churn service related fees.

Cap AUM and make them boost their endowment spending rates to the point where they can maintain a rainy day fund while actually providing value to students. Imo thats how you bring down tuition as private universities will theoretically be forced to lower fees and increase program related spending in order to compete.


Captain_Mazhar t1_jdd0q3a wrote

As someone who works in higher education finance, it's not that simple. Endowments are not a general fund that can be redirected and tapped for revenue. Most of an endowment is made up from thousands of donors who have specifically earmarked their donations for specific uses, for example paying for more staff at a favored college, or funding research. Those are legal agreements that cannot be redirected without the consent of each donor.

The only sources of redirectable income are state appropriations and tuition/fees. They are not entailed income, so they can be redirected, however much of it is needed for upkeep/maintenance/salaries.


DrFrocktopus t1_jdd1phd wrote

I used to work in investment consulting, specifically related to university endowments, so Im aware of the distinction between restricted and unrestricted funds. The general idea is a total cap on AUM would make universities reassess their fundraising targets. They'll have to decide between that juicy large dollar restricted donation or comparatively smaller donations that can go into their unrestricted fund. You'll probably see unrestricted funds grow as total % of AUM.


EveViol3T t1_jdjdwl4 wrote

What do you mean, the "for-profit college"? That's a UC, as in a University of California college. That's a public university, not a for-profit college.


Ok-Brush5346 t1_jdb97yk wrote

If I was getting evicted because of renovations (that I likely wanted to have done to improve the place I pay to live) it'd give me little comfort to know whether the renovations will actually happen. I'm homeless now, I don't give a fart if you are actually remodeling.


ExchangeParadox t1_jdd07ib wrote

In the IE at an assisted living facility called Vista Blue Mountain, they are doing this to their tenets as well. 60 days to vacate and the poor retirees are scrambling to find a new place only to see that other facilities ( looking at you Villa D Anza) are jacking up their rates. It’s a terrible business finding affordable living in California.


smogop t1_jdgs60f wrote

California and affordable do not belong in the same sentence, sorry.


ExchangeParadox t1_jdhqkx8 wrote

It’s terrible business living in California. There are affordable places and obviously some people are able to make it work but it certainly seems that business and government practices are driving people away/out of certain neighborhoods.


bigblackkittie t1_jdd7wvh wrote

I used to live in one of those buildings when i was at UCSB and the landlord then was decent. This is some bullshit.


beizhia t1_jddky7p wrote

I don't know if there's actually enough places for that many people to live down there. I lived in Goleta until last year, and had to leave because I couldn't find a 1 bedroom apartment for under $3000/mo. Ended up moving away completely.


Murgatroyd314 t1_jdb7wos wrote


Croughman OP t1_jdba5q3 wrote

Unfortunately Isla Vista is an unincorporated area apart from Santa Barbara which means this doesn’t apply


smogop t1_jdgshna wrote

Even so, all you need to do is make it uninhabitable for more than 24hrs. No plumbing or electricity does the trick especially when replacing electrical panels from the 70s.