You're viewing a single thread.
As a current landlord about to extend a lease at exactly the same terms for 3rd year in a row (and I fix everything within 24 hours) - I agree with this too.
It's ridiculous that my largest store of value is a speculation bubble and a piece of paper with my name on it
I couldn't disagree more. All the hatred should be directed at individuals/companies that own a bunch of properties. They are specifically in the business of fucking people.
The thing I hate most is that all of these clowns will tell you you MUST raise rent every year. They also would likely try and murder you if you even got close to forcing them to pay their employees more every year, or even just other people's employees. Keep in mind, if you own the property, you are making money with equity no matter if you have tenants or not. So all the rent is gravy but they want to squeeze people to death because they legally have to maintain their own rentals, which the cost of upkeep is REALLY far below the rent paid. Again, $0 in rent is STILL making money off the property.
100% as long as you're talking about paid off property. That doesn't really exist since every company that makes this their business model is over-leveraged as fuck and landlords with a single property are very likely to still have a mortgage.
As opposed to the people who merely own one family of serfs?
Wtf are you talking about?
Edit: messed up the formatting.
Does it matter to a family that can only rent if they rent from a corporation vs individual?
Spreading out renters is not a solution.
The following math works if the all landlords own the maximum allowed.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1000, only 1‰ of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 100, only 1% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 10, only 10% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1, only 50% of the population can be landlords.
To go back to the beginning, if there is no maximum, only 1 person (0.0001%) of the population can be a landlord and everyone else is a renter (the whole "you will own nothing and be happy" line).
What percent of the population do you want to permit to be landlords? Mind you, not property managers, specifically landlords.
Remember 100% of the population can be a property manager because everyone can manage their own property. But the largest percentage of the population that can be landlords is 50%.
I see that you differentiate from people who happen to have extra space and want to rent it out, that I can understand. But also understand that someone can buy 1 home specifically to fuck over other people.
The problem is that some people want to own other people's homes. Some people want to own 1000 people's homes and others just 1 is enough. In either case it is not the number that is the problem but the desire to own other people's homes for the sole purpose of rent seeking that is the problem.
That is what is meant by the comment about "merely own one family of serfs" is about.
Why make an allowance for property managers? Seems like they see a group of people being exploited, and want to find a way to take a cut of that exploitation.
Good question. I understand where you're coming from with that statement. I have seen ads such as: (https://bsky.app/profile/derek.bike/post/3kkwecolbwk23) and very much share your sentiment.
Short answer: The Division of Labour
Long answer (sorry in advance):
I work in tech, I can choose to work in tech all day because I am the most productive in it. Then I can hire a chef that cooks for me, a maid to clean, a gardener to garden, etc and a manager that manages the home. Each cook, maid, gardener, and manager can in turn have multiple clients. And if they work all day in the thing they are most proficient at, they can in turn hire other people to do the stuff they do not do. This style of living is usual in India, Singapore and outside "The West" more generally. You can see here that the property manager is a part of the division of labour and so "competes in the marketplace" with other property managers for that position, the same with me and all the other workers do for our respective roles in the example.
This is peak liberalism/free market dynamics. I don't think this is sustainable without coersion. But this is what is meant by "social production" by both Smith and Marx.
Furthermore, you can choose not to hire anybody and be your own property manager which is, in my opinion, more sustainable and totally allowed.
The problem with landlords is that if all the land is owned by someone else, you do not have an option of managing your own land without "hiring" anybody else to do it so you are trapped. This also allows landlords to squeeze money out of people. And the biggest issue it allows other people to rule out your own existance. This sentiment is perfectly encapsulated by the following quote:
Land, n. A part of the earth’s surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
- The Devil’s Dictionary https://archive.org/details/devilsdictionar00bier/page/68/
I hope that shows my position on the matter. I would like your take on it. As can be seen in this thread, there are those who do understand the position and instead of engaging with it, just deride it.
None of the shit your said counters my original point. Individual renters with a single rental property inherently care about it and it will almost never be their only income. They're not doing it to squeeze the most money out of it. Most just need rent to cover their own expenses.
Previous comment is still utter fucking nonsense.
You were given a great answer but to put it even more bluntly, just because someone owns one slave it doesn’t make it any better than someone owning a whole plantation of slaves. It’s horrible either way, I don’t care if you have more time to take better care of your slave because it’s your only one; you still own a fucking slave
It wasn't a great answer. It was incredibly banal and doesn't take reality into consideration. This idiotic logic can be applied to anything. It doesn't make any more sense just because you repeat it.
We live in a capitalist country. We're all slaves by this primitive thinking. You can shift the blame endlessly.
A properly maintained rental that is fairly priced is not unfair to anyone.
I know what the point you're trying to make in response, it is an understandable one but I will respond to it later. Hopefully by the weekend.
To make sure I get the point your trying to make is: not everyone can be a doctor, not everyone can be a teacher, not everyone can be a plumber, likewise not everyone can be a landlord. In every society only a certain percentage of people can be said thing. This is what you mean when you said "It ... doesn’t take reality into consideration".
Not at all. The only point I'm trying to make is there's a vast difference between companies that own a lot of properties for rent and individuals who own one. Like differences between banks and credit unions. One does bare minimum required to squeeze maximum amount of money from customers, another provides a fantastic service while still making a profit.
The reality you're disconnected from is the fact that we live in a capitalist society and not in a non-existent utopia where all resources are shared equally. By your logic family owned stores and restaurants are also enslaving people because we all need to eat. It makes no sense.
To start off, I disagree with your last point. Family owned returants don't matter because I can cook my own food. However, if all the farmland or grocers are owned by other people or other families (like Weston) then yes that would apply and would be correct.
If all the land is owned by someone else and I need land to exist and live. And if the owners of land prevent me from existing and farming, and further have a legal right to jail me, and thus the only option is to work/pay them or die than that is slavery.
This is the rational for why Landlords did the Enclosure of the Commons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure)
If all the land is owned by someone else where should I go if I don't want to pay anyone else to just exist and live on my own?
Now to your main point:
There are landlords that only own one rental but are still bad landlords. There are landlords with multiple rentals that work hard. The number of rentals do not determine if a landlord will act well or not.
Furthermore, I clearly stated that I'm against landlords not property manager.
You can be a landlord and hire a property manager.
Turn key property's does this, look under "have a property" (https://www.turnkeypm.ca/)
This means a person who owns one rental unit and still is a landlord can do nothing themselves.
When you do this, you don't work on the property, because you hired someone to do it for you, you just collect the rent just for ownership. This is the definition of rent seeking.
If you are a good property manager. You can sell your property management skill for income instead of owning the land. And even better, sell your property managing skills to home owners. Gardeners do this, so do maids, snow removal services, plumbers, etc. If you're good at what you do and provide value than it should not be hard for you to sell your services to people who own their own homes.
On to your analogy:
You're analogy to banks and credit unions is categorically and literally, from a legal perspective, wrong.
Banks are corporations. So are landlord owned rentals. Rentals can be owned by the person but if you don't want personal liability you incorporate into a corporation.
The equivalent to credit unions in housing is housing cooperatives. Both are cooperatives. Credit unions are financial cooperatives and housing cooperatives are well housing cooperatives.
Cooperatives are distinct legal entities and are governened by different Acts from corporations.
The big difference is that a corporation is owned by investors. In the case of rental units, landlords. Whereas a cooperative is owned by the users and/or workers. In the case of housing, it is owned by the tenants, that is how housing cooperatives are described.
Ontario page about incorporating as a Cooperative and transiting between the two: https://www.ontario.ca/page/start-dissolve-and-change-co-operative-corporation
CHMC article about forming housing cooperatives: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/industry-innovation-and-leadership/industry-expertise/affordable-housing/co-operative-housing-guide/documents-needed-to-form-housing-co-op
If you want to support the credit union version of housing you can support housing cooperatives by supporting MPs that pass legislation and invest in them. Or you can invest in community land trusts as well.
Investment can bring, depending on the project (3-5%). However this is much less than returns on land which is the primary reason for being a landlord which is what the OP of this comment thread was referring to when they said that most of their net worth is tied to a piece of paper.
Co-operative housing federation of Canada: https://chfcanada.coop/
Community Land Trust Canada: https://www.communityland.ca/
Community Investing: https://tapestrycapital.ca/
Federal Legislation bringing more funding to Housing Cooperatives: https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrastructure-communities/news/2024/06/federal-government-launches-new-15-billion-program-to-build-a-new-generation-of-coop-housing.html
There's a difference between saying we're not in a utopia and standing in the way. You can choose one or both. But being ignorant of solutions happening right now or exercising political power against this or people who want to achieve this is standing in the way.
Chris? Lol
Will be in your situation in due time.
Inheritance will give my siblings and I property.
My siblings and I have already talked about it. We're looking to see if we can transfer it to Community Land Trusts or sell.
Here's a link to the Canada wide association: https://www.communityland.ca/
Here's the one specific to Ottawa: https://www.oclt.ca/
There are others in other cities.
Some (like Ottawa) don't take individual units yet but we'll prob sell and then invest in them or if they choose to buy individual units, sell to them.
If you can find one. Sell to a community land trust or housing co-op. You can get your capital back and the people living there can manage and own their own homes.
You can then reinvest the capital into other projects: https://tapestrycapital.ca/
Or in renewable energy: https://www.orec.ca/
Or credit union class B shares.
They try to aim for 4-5% ROI so above inflation. Unfortunately, most people want the ubsustainable returns in real estate.
Ooo! Those are good alternatives. I'll give em a read through. It might solve something on my end.
Say I want to move cities for a new job. There are at least two uncertainties I need to resolve -
- will this job work out for the long term?
- will I like this city at all (or know where to buy)?
This prevents me from wanting to buy immediately.
What prevents me from selling immediately is losing a stable footing I can plan around if the new city doesn't work out. More broadly for everyone in this situation though is the cash sits.
I will need to buy immediately or park it in some investment that keeps pace/liquid enough to convert back to a house, which requires additional knowledge/research.
So to be risk averse, sitting on the house is generally a safe default...
But thank you for starting me on considering this as an options and what parameters need to be met to make sense.
Glad to help.
For now. I'd at least put it in your will and talk to the beneficiaries of your estate about it.
I have family members who are more into the whole Real Estate "game" and would rather the property. Putting it in your will prevent any shenanigans.
The whole "society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never know" and all that.
You're right about moving cities part of it. Ideally if there are enough community land trusts and housing cooperatives you won't face such issues as the distinction between "renting" and "owning" will disappear. And your investments will be divorced from land and onto actual projects.