• TassieTosser@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Being a landlord is supposed to be a job though. They’re supposed to maintain the property and handle property related disputes between the tenant and the community. The problem is landlords aren’t held to their obligations and are allowed to treat it as a passive investment. Liability for landlords and their property managers needs to be increased. Require a licence for landlording that can be revoked.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Double property taxes on owners, but give back a property tax credit on owner-occupants, so that the effective tax rate on owner occupants falls, and the only people paying the doubled tax rate are investors.

    Statutorily increase the tax rate and credit when owner occupancy is below 80%, and reduce the tax rate and credit when owner occupancy rises above 90%.

  • Lung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wait so is… uhhh how? Like you’re literally not allowed to live somewhere unless you own it?? What about short term rentals and vacations? Or is the idea that we live in some kinda socialist utopia where homes are just idk assigned to people via lottery?

    • reversedposterior@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      There are plenty of mechanisms that can be employed (as there already are in many countries) to ensure profit is not made from essential living. You either own or have strict rent control which tends to mean many properties are publicly owned. Recreational stay is different, it is part of a hospitality industry which provides an additional service on top of what fundamental housing provides.

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Had an old landlord keep my deposit when I moved out just because they could. We left the apartment absolutely spotless and never damaged anything. In fact, we added value by fixing a couple small things. Didn’t matter.

    Fuck landlords.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I have to agree with those others who suggest that banning landlords is not the way to go.

    However, the power dynamics should be significantly shifted. And if those shifts mean some landlords decide to exit the market? So be it.

    1. Tenants should not be able to be evicted for any reason other than: damaging the property, being significantly (maybe 6 months?) behind on rent, the owner or an immediate family member wants to move in, significant renovations are needed (with strong enforcement to ensure these last two are actually done, and not used as a fake excuse). No ability to use evictions as a reprisal for complaining about the conditions.
    2. Tenants should be entitled to treat the place basically as their own. That means any minor reversible modification should be permitted, including painting and hanging up photos.
    3. No restrictions on pets other than those which would normally come with local ordinances and animal welfare laws.
    4. Rental inspections every 3 months is absurd. Maybe the first after 3 months, then 6 months, then annually after that at best.
    5. Strict rules about landlords being required to maintain the property to a comfortable condition. Harsh penalties if they fail to do so, as well as the ability for the tenant to get the work done themselves and make the landlord pay for it, if the landlord does not get it done in a reasonable time.

    And tangentially, to prevent property owners just leaving their homes without a long-term tenant: significantly increased rates/taxes for homes that are unoccupied long-term, or which are used for short-term accommodation (e.g. Airbnb). Additionally, state-owned housing with highly affordable pricing should make up a substantial portion of the market, on the order of 30%. This provides a pretty hard floor below which privately-owned housing cannot fall, because people should be reasonably able to say “this place isn’t good enough, I’ll move”.

    If a property owner is willing to deal with the fact that a home’s first and foremost purpose should be to provide a safe and secure place for a person to live, then I have no problem with them profiting.

    • Confused_Emus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      the owner or an immediate family member wants to move in

      Abso-fucking-lutely not. A lease is a contract. You don’t get to shove someone out into being homeless because Cousin Lou needs a place to stay. Either rent/sell the property, or keep it for personal use. Not both.

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Owning things” is not a job, correct. Making a living owning property is not a service to society.

      Doing the labour to repair property is a service. Doing the filing to keep records of usage and repair is a service. Taking a cut because your name is on a deed? That’s just stealing from the people who did the work.