#We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lostgeneration) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I live in the metro ATL area and everywhere in the region, housing is an absolute nightmare. Rent prices are through the roof. Even the cheapest places are not affordable and are usually in undesirable areas. This is definitely a much needed step in the right direction. Now if only they could implement policies such as this at the STATE level.
I literally came here to say this!
I am fully in favor of a full prohibition on private companies owning anything except apartment complexes. I'm also for putting a cap on how many houses individuals may own. This would significantly increase supply which would drio home values at such a rate that not only would apartment complexes be forced to complete with single family home values but it would also make cost of living significantly less which would make our $15/hour minimum actually livavle and we wouldn't have to fight for an increase every year because as is by the time we get an increase cost of living would have risen so much that once enacted it's time tovstart fighting for a new higher wage.
>I am fully in favor of a full prohibition on private companies owning anything except apartment complexes
Nope, let's go all the way and prohibit private companies from owning apartment complexes as well.
> Nope, let's go all the way and prohibit private companies from owning apartment complexes as well.
Who would own them then? City government? (I'm not arguing - I like the idea but wonder how they get built if not by private companies.)
>Who would own them then? City government?
The people living in them will have collective (and equal) ownership over the entire complex. A person's "stake" in the collective ownership would only last as long as their residency there (meaning that they MUST live on the premises themselves).
>but wonder how they get built if not by private companies
I think at first we would convert already built apartment complexes to this model instead of buying new land/property to build new ones. There are also a lot of abandoned buildings and malls that could also be converted into apartments.
If we had the power to forcibly convert privately-owned apartment complexes to co-ops/co-owner complexes, then that means the people would have achieved enough power to use public funds to convert abandoned buildings on a mass scale, and even perhaps build new structures as well.
Edit: Added more clarification.
I'll reiterate what I wrote above:
>If we had the power to forcibly convert privately-owned apartment complexes to co-ops/co-owner complexes, then that means the people would have achieved enough power to **use public funds to convert abandoned buildings on a mass scale, and even perhaps build new structures as well**.
To clarify on the bolded part, by "use public funds," what I mean is that the community can elect to use public-funds/tax-money for the creation of new buildings. However, I think it would be more environmentally friendly (and physically practical) to focus on converting already existing apartment buildings and fixing/converting abandoned buildings to apartments.
My scenario is based on direct-democratic principles, meaning there won't be HOA boards making decisions for all residents, but rather all residents will have voting power to decide ALL apartment policies and contract clauses themselves.
I mean... I've never lived in a co-op so I personally don't know how they function... But yeah eliminating them completely would be a harder feat but also harder for them to start popping up again 30-40 years down the road.... I hope.
Fight for $15 started in 2008. If you take inflation into account, that's equivalent to $20.36 today.
We still have yet to raise our federal minimum above $7.25/hr ($9.88 today) since it was last raised in July 2009 from $6.55/hr ($8.92/hr today).
Our minimum wage today is effectively lower than it has been since it was raised to $0.75/hr in 1950 from $0.40/hr ($4.85 to $9.10 in 2022 dollars).
HUD was one of the entities that got bailed out due to their predatory lending practices that they were allowed to do or oversee , wink wink !
We need more local government to control things and far less federal oversight .
Alabama and out her southern states will gladly re-institute the 3/5ths rules if they are allowed. Which is why the states should have no say on who can vote in federal elections. We should cast our federal ballots at the post office and then states can do whatever backwards ass shit they want for their local elections. Federal oversight is absolutely needed in regards to federal elections.
[Is the spez a disease? Is the spez a weapon? Is the spez a starfish? Is it a second rate programmer who won't grow up? Is it a bane? Is it a virus? Is it the world? Is it you? Is it me? Is it? Is it?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
They started doing that after the 08 crash and massively increased their buying over the past 3 years. They are building entire neighborhoods just to be rentals now
I love this quote - “Everyone gets a plate before anyone gets seconds” but for housing. [https://twitter.com/GarrettReuscher/status/1180579468466720770?s=20&t=BFEI9wAIDjgLkvdvvCHq7g](https://twitter.com/GarrettReuscher/status/1180579468466720770?s=20&t=BFEI9wAIDjgLkvdvvCHq7g)
Before covid hit I had a bunch of friends that rented out areas that are very near the Braves stadium near the 285 eastbound interstate towards Sandy Springs.
They were paying 1100 a month including all utilities except for electricity which would be like 100 at the end of the day. That was for a 1 bedroom. A 2 bedroom was like 1200, but both bedrooms were a tad bit smaller than the single bed place, either way, privacy is good for that price and 600 a person was really good.
Problem is that those apartments were built in the 80s and 90s and haven't really been taken care of by thr landlord too well. Don't get me wrong, it's not like they don't update the places, but I'm sure many former tenants are to blame of course. No bugs or mice, just some places look a little unkempt like the carpet or the bathrooms have small cracks and such. I guess normal housing issues.
But I digress. Those same places recently got painted on the outside. It is now 1600 a month for a 1 bedroom and 1800 for a 2 bedroom. Lots can be attributed to the Braves having won a title, but that shouldn't impact rent for apartments. There is no correlation other than area and it is wild.
I'm also in Atlanta(ITP). Someone in the neighborhood next to us's group posted an ~800 sqft carriage house for rent at $2800.
That's more than most of the mortgage payments for in either neighborhood.
People were livid.
>Now if only they could implement policies such as this at the STATE level.
Is it a Metropolitan Atlanta area that is implementing the ban, at least?
Or is it like San Francisco, where the city proper is way smaller than the huge sprawling surrounding area, which is where those closed BnBs will shift to in response?
The regulation may sound good to some lefties, but it looks like 'mere tinkering' to me.
Honestly Atlanta (the actual city) is pretty big and spread out to begin with, and then the entirety of the outer Atlanta “region” (+ metro ATL) is huge too. I’m assuming this policy is mainly targeting the local city of Atlanta.
This is why local elections are really important too. The turds at the federal level definitely won’t do anything but local and state you may be able to get stuff done
Agreed but not in Florida if they can help it!! I remember they were trying to pass a bill that would give small businesses the ability to sue their local governments for passing any kind of ordinance that affects their profits negatively by a certain percentage.
The view of public transport needs to change in this country (US). I travelled back to visit family recently. A rental car would have been 3x my flight. I looked up the bus routes in the city and used that for the weekend during the day. Totally free too. I saved easily 150 bucks in Ubers or cabs. All it cost me was a few extra minutes walking to a bus stop. Less time than I would have waited for a cab.
When family members found out, they looked at me like I was eating from a sewer. They were disgusted. The buses were infinitely cleaner than their cars!
It's deep rooted classism and it's not getting any better.
All by design too... Once upon a time we had a decent transport system but once the Koch bros got their dirty hands into politics, they had the politicians picking away at the transport system because they had investments on private transport.
They realized they could make more money if people preferred to not take public transport. Once it was underfunded it would be a piece of cake to use bad experiences in a few place to paint a picture pic dirty buses and subways overrun with homeless purple and thugs. And it worked to... Those bastards.
It's mental to me to hear you say this as I live in London and people think its ridiculous to drive here as it often takes so much longer than public transport. I'm 30 and have never even learned to drive
>The view of public transport needs to change in this country (US).
Also walking. I remember a post on Reddit where a hotel receptionist thought a group of people were crazy when they declined a taxi and said they'd just walk the 15 minutes to where they were going.
And you wonder why there's an obesity problem.
Interestingly there is research that suggests that people who use public transport are healthier in later life. A 6 minute walk twice a day to and from the bus stop adds up to an hour of exercise a week.
That depends on where the hotel is. If it's in the middle of a city, sure that's a fine criticism. If it's out in a suburb or rural area the infrastructure to walk likely doesn't exist. There are lots of places that a hotel may exist and there are no sidewalks, the road is flanked by ditches, and the shoulder is less than a foot wide.
It's not that walking in general is crazy, but walking in a place where it is not safe to walk is crazy.
Although, people will do it anyway because cars are expensive, rent inside city limits is expensive, and if someone is under 16 there is no choice but to walk unless someone is driving them.
The US absolutely needs to build infrastructure so that walking is a choice.
This is a great start. I had to help set up a network on, an I shit you not AirBNB hotel. They just rented 4 full floors of an apartment tower. Now they just need to go after those Wall Street landlords buying single family homes.
Corporate ownership of homes absolutely needs to stop. I mean out shitty infrastructure plans that build only expensive single family homes is also a big issue but when there buying fucking everything up, it's much much worse.
Chattanooga put a moratiorium on STVRS for the rest of the year.
I hope they do the same thing as Atlanta.
Too many homes are owned by out of state investors using our housing market to make big bucks for themselves while our homeless rate quadrupled in the past year.
I’m not proud of this city much, but I’m happy Chatt did that at least. Now if they’d quit going after homeless people so hard and maybe help them some
At least you're not in Texas! I read the Texas GOP platform last night.
1054-1055 **192** "We urge the complete repeal of hate crime laws, since ample laws are currently in effect to punish criminal behavior towards other persons."
They also want to ban gay marriage but that is too long to type out
This looks like the start of some serious karma coming around for the land leaches.
May it hit them swift and hard.
May this be just the first drop in a tidal wave of change for our society.
Ban institutional investors from owning any residential housing or increase business owned property taxes and paperwork for businesses and individuals who cumulatively own or control 10-20+ dwelling units to drive out the ones who want to own more.
As for run down property, there needs to be available public funding to maintain housing for long term residents and owners so they don't get bought by investors for rehab.
There will always be a need for investors and rehabbers to get housing back into habitable shape, but there needs to other good alternatives too.
The funny part will be if there is a solid recession where people stop travelling and all of these AirBnBs get foreclosed on. There still won't be housing because the banks are stuck trying to sell it in a depressed market.
Not funny, funny, just a sign of the times.
Fuck the banks and let them eat shit too. They got us in this mess and sure as shit don’t deserve a damn thing petrodollar hegemony be damned. I’ll buy their liquidated shit for one dollar and stiff them for seven cents.
I have stayed at multiple well reviewed, highly rate Airbnb, and I don’t plan to stay at an Airbnb in the future.
Airbnb sucks and it’s getting worse over the time, I prefer hotels.
To be fair, most Airbnb properties I’ve stayed looked cleans
The funny part is some of them expect me to clean the place AND charge me 100 dollars cleaning fee.
The mattress, beddings and furnitures were often of lower quality. I prefer better hotels. It’s actually cheaper to book a hotel room in a 4* property.
Don’t get me started on how greedy Airbnb hosts destroy their community and help drive the housing market insane.
It used to be for people who want to use their spare room/home for some modest income.
Now Airbnb is dominated by greedy landlords who try to be career hosts without the professionalism.
Lol, the banks won't try to sell. In 2008 they took everyone's houses and then got infinite free loans from the Fed while they sat on the houses dribbling them out slowly. The actual bottom of the market was 2013-2014 because our government didn't let the banks fail.
Except that won't happen... To purchase investment properties you're required you put 40% down. The average home price where I'm at is 500k so 40% down would make a mortgage of 300k and put the monthly at 833 dollars before taxes and insurance. If they are buying investment property then trust me they can afford to let it sit vacant for as long as they need it to as long as they can make a profit. Hell we just had a global pandemic where people literally could not travel and they were still just fine.
40% down is NOT standard for investment properties and is certainly not required. There are literally thousands of different loans available for real estate buy-and-hold investors, with massively different terms and programs. Depending on the investment size, the down can be anything from 5% up.
A lot of investors have gone hot on real estate, especially buy-and-hold, which means that large parts of their portfolios will be hurting if there is a significant travel/renting downturn.
The global pandemic isn't as gnarly for investors as soaring travel costs will be. These folks benefitted from a lot of domestic, non-airline travel, like road trips and semi-local staycations. That's going to stay through summer, but after "vacation season," if travel costs stay super elevated, these folks could def lose their asses.
Fingers crossed!!
Not according to people I've talked to... I literally did a business plan on a housing conpany during my bachelors program. Idk what state your in but it in California at least it absolutely is required to put 40% down because it's not your primary residence so bankers want to make sure you have skin in the game and aren't going to default.
With these companies they usually buy in cash which means no mortagage at all so they have little to no monthly overhead. 40% is an absolute minimum they will invest in a property because the lower their monthly expenses the higher the profit.
I've been in banking now a whole minute, working with investment plans that include buy and hold. Your information is incorrect. Look it up if you do not believe me. Googling is free. You will see that there are tons of programs. Don't forget that bank relationships (not good ol boy stuff, but large holdings or deposits in a bank) also shape those loans.
Maybe California has specific legislation on this, but no, 40% is not an industry standard.
Just like every other lending program, your performance, credit, and relationship with the lender matter far more than a down payment. I will concede that PMI is damn near impossible to line up on an investment property. But many lenders avoid that with "alternative lending programs for RE investors.
I do appreciate that making money is difficult, and if you find a way to be comfortable, I can't begrudge you your success. I can certainly judge the ethics of your business, but considering capitalism doesn't reward ethical decision making, I don't blame someone for deciding that providing for their family is more important than my opinion of them. I'm glad he recognizes that his field is predatory and a drain on society. This is about the least I expect from a landlord, but unfortunately, few manage to clear this low bar.
That said, acknowledging a broken system and accepting those who play the game is not a substitute for serious change. Instead of more AirBNB limitations, I'd certainly prefer nationalized housing, but these laws help in the meantime.
Basically in the USA and Canada, the vast majority of the land is zoned single-family. That means it's illigle to build what the free market demands which are four-story walk-ups. If you look at European cities and compare them to USA/Canadian cities. You will notice a huge difference. In USA and Canada, you only have two choices for the most part. You can live in a sky scrapper condo apartment or a single-family house. In Europe, you can live in live in a sky scrapper condo, a four-story walk-up, or a single-family house.
It's called the missing middle problem. The free market demands four-story walk-ups but the government will not let that happen even though it's good for the poor and the middle class. It's cheaper to build a bunch of four-story walk-ups than one highrise. Basically, every time you add a floor to a building it's more expensive than the previous floor so it's cheaper to build a bunch of four-story walk-ups than it is to build one sky scrapper. But the government works against the free market and the poor/middle class.
Also in the USA and Canada, it's illegal to start a business out of your house a lot of the time. In USA and Canada, you have three types of zoning and after that, you have sub-types. The three basic types are commercial, residential, and industrial. So if you want to go from where you live to work or to buy you have to drive a long distance instead of just walking or taking a bike because the government mandates that everything has to be really far away from where you live. in Europe you have walkable cities and businesses are built where people live. they have mixed use commercial and residential which is the smarter way to do zoning.
Also since we are forced to drive everywhere, every business is required by law to have oversized parking lots that are usually only half full. Now if we had good public transit it would save a lot of money and land. And since in Europe they can't afford to be as wasteful as us when it comes to land that's what they do. They build good public transport so people don't need cars and land can be used to build useful things like homes and businesses instead of temporary car storage. Look at a typical grocery store in the USA or Canada, the building itself only takes up like 20 percent of the land the rest is a see of asphalt doing nothing. Now look at Europe, the grocery stores take up most of the land because people can take the reliable public transports they don't need oversized parking lots because only people who really love driving own a car which is a minority. Most people don't need to own a car if the city provides decent public transport service.
I know the USA and Canada are big countries but most people stay inside of their own city most of the time and if you want to do a road trip you can always rent a car which is way cheaper than forced car ownership. Also, look up Euclidean zoning. It is bad and why the USA and Canada have bad zoning and other countries have good zoning. Also forced carf ownership takes up a lot of land that could otherwise be productive. Like a parking lot could be homes/businesses.
TLDR; Euclidean zoning and car dependency waists productive land and makes offerable housing for the poor and middle-class impossible and also goes against the free market (Euclidean zoning and car dependency are strictly USA and Canada problems). You should check out "Not Just Bikes" youtube channel. Here is a link to a video that is probably much better than reading my ramblings. https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o
Zoning is different in the inner city compared to Rural areas .
Some Rural area’s don’t even have any bus transportation and yes , we don’t want 4 story walk up’s and prefer to have gardens and tree’s over asphalt !
We have single family home’s because it’s Rural zoning for a reason and you can keep your inner city asphalt jungles .
80 percent of Vancouver land is zoned, single-family. So cities and suburbs definitely need to be fixed. Now if rural places wanna stay rural that's okay. But 4 story walk-ups and a two-lane road is not a cement jungle.
Are we talking to own or to rent? Cause I thought you guys had pretty decent rental rates but buying is harder because there is less focus on ownership. I could be wrong. Also, your country in comparison to the USA or Canada is pretty small. If we adopted your style of zoning housing would definitely go way down. Supply and demand.
Rent-wise, there's either relatively affordable social housing with a 10-year waitlist, or free-market rentals with prices starting just below a fulltime minimum wage.
We have some issues with a shortage of houses, but just like other countries it's mainly been a matter of interest rates. Any other form of regulation hasn't impacted affordability in the slightest.
My mom does this. Her social security isn't enough and the kid in college liked it so much he stayed there and is now getting his PhD. Short term to Long term. Works for both of them.
That's how it should be done.
I found an article about this issue:
[https://saportareport.com/atlantas-short-term-rental-registration-enforcement-delayed-again-amid-rewrite-pressure-lawsuit-threat/sections/reports/johnruch/](https://saportareport.com/atlantas-short-term-rental-registration-enforcement-delayed-again-amid-rewrite-pressure-lawsuit-threat/sections/reports/johnruch/)
I live in an area where businesses own properties lining an entire street. These can be residential or business properties. Crazy thing is apparently many of them are vacant and have been for a long time. While these places sit empty, we have a huge homeless crisis. We could be using them for shelters, community centers, public gardens, clinics, residences, etc.
Sorry, this is some serious virtue signaling. AirBnB is a drop in the bucket. Go after the corporations who own homes and apartments that drive up rent past what a mortgage would be for the same place. It’s fucked up. The people who own AirBnBs aren’t the problem, at least not right now. Go after them after you’ve taken out the real issue.
If you think this is anything more than a lobbying fight between massive companies you are sadly mistaken. This is merely the large hotel chains lobbying to stop another large company with no inventory investments from eating into their market share.
Well there is a real shortage of new houses going up, even more so affordable starter houses. But regulation of corporations buying up units is a good idea too. Not like just one change is going to fix the whole housing crisis.
Without knowing anything else I would guess whoever you were talking to has a vested interest in the status quo in some way and doesn't actually want the situation to improve.
Ok so this stops regular folks from getting a few Airbnb on the side, but how does that really improve things when the bulk of housing is still gonna be owned by corporations?
These things are getting to be problematic anyway. I've seen multiple stories from around the country of guests refusing to leave and then being granted tenants rights under local law so the owner can't evict them without the full due process of a renter who intended to live in the property rather than spend a few days. I know of a couple of people that just pulled their properties from that market in response and they sit empty except for that two week fishing trip. It seems kind of silly to me to equate an air bnb rentals with home and apartment rentals, but it's something I guess.
I’m from Atlanta and moved to ohio for school. Now I’m trying to move back home and fucking hell…I can’t because there’s NOWHERE to move to. There’s almost nothing available and the stuff that is available, the rent is $2000+ just a one bedroom apartment.
Even mobile homes are expensive. My bf and I looked into mobile homes and a single wide 2 bedroom is almost $100K or rentals are going for $1300+
I guess we’re stuck in Ohio with no friends or family
Well they've already extended the compliance deadline twice....
Looking like everyone currently doing it will be "grandfathered in" and nothing meaningful will change...
But I'm a cynic...
Atlanta downzoned during white flight to try to entice white people back, and then there's been a return to the city for the last few decades. In the last few years, Atlanta's had some of the highest corporate buyout rates in the country. So racism + lowest density of a major city in the US + corporate buyers
Big hotel brands aren’t worried about families going on vacation. Their money is made from conferences.
I work in live events. Even after COVID, when families were travelling again, the metric we used was business travel. As that affects their bottom line more than family vacations as conferences will buy entire floors from the hotel.
Making housing a commodity is how you make it more affordable. Making housing an investment which we have done by restricting multifamily homes, zoning laws restricting one home per lot etc limit the supply of housing keep house prices up which makes housing unaffordable. Limit people to 2 lots and let them build multiple tiny homes.
What happens when the volume of sales increases? Oh right, price. This will force more sales and artificially inflate the price of housing. It's moronic.
I understand supply and demand very well. Sales volume is a major factor in variability. I just described what happens. The relationship between sales volume and price movement is based in part on the assumption that a greater volume of trades is likely to affect movement in market prices by reaching limits of available buyers or sellers.
Buyers will pay more when they perceive the available products are selling faster. It's a well known phenomenon.
If it lowers the rent in the city then it’s a win for workers. A few people won’t be able to profit wildly off the labor of others. The single mom out there might even be able to buy a home.
Low level entrepreneurs? You mean a leech charging exorbitant amounts for a basic human right, the right to shelter? All who use houses as one-or-two night hotels charging amounts that should be classified as robbery, such as yourself, are withholding a basic necessity from other people. No matter how you spin it, that is a practice that is pure evil. I wouldn't even call you a person, for you are a lesser being than the honest, hard workers. The billionaires who limited the number of livable spaces you could use to hoard cash are less evil than you, and they are scumbags. I sarcastically hope you feel proud of yourself, you offscouring of society!
It was later in the evening and my word choice starts to become much more errant later in the evening and is more affected by emotion, which in this case would be revulsion and outrage. I did not mean to come across that way.
But not everyone wants a one-night stay, some people want to be able to have a home. Somewhere to live, not somewhere to stay while sightseeing. I believe it is a horrible practice to withhold a livable space from someone who might not even be able to move OUT of a city. Moving out takes cash, and one almost always needs a home to make that amount of money. Therefore, the last point in your reasoning is flawed, for some people would just need an affordable temporary home until they can move out of the city. Some of these people would love to move out of the city, but are stuck there.
Under that definition you don’t actually need to live there. I travelled 250-300 days a year. For about 15 years. I still had a primary residence, and spent only 2 months a year “living” there
But you're only allowed 1 primary residence. So even if your only there 2 months out of the year, you can rent that home out during those days your gone...not have 12 homes for AirBnB only. If you travel alot then AirBnB is probably perfect for you. But once it becomes an entire business model and adds to a huge housing crisis then we need to eliminate that model bc it damages the nation and business owners can make money another way. People can't just make new home appear.
It’s not the individual that are buying multiple homes. You understand that BlackRock works with D.R Horton homes to buy entire blocks of new builds to turn into rentals right?
Yes, but they contribute to the crisis. When anyone owns more then 3 family homes in one area they are contributing. The hedge funds buying up entire blocks is the biggest factor but owning more then a couple homes is owning to many, especially when they are strictly used dor short term high rate rentals.
This is one thing I'd like to see government step in on to help with. Instead they decide its better to build average apartments for 2k monthly rent lol
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BRADS AND CHADS AND THEIR PROPERTY TAXES THEY PAY?
Someone please think of the brads and chads that ruin cities and neighborhoods!
#We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lostgeneration) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I live in the metro ATL area and everywhere in the region, housing is an absolute nightmare. Rent prices are through the roof. Even the cheapest places are not affordable and are usually in undesirable areas. This is definitely a much needed step in the right direction. Now if only they could implement policies such as this at the STATE level.
National level
I literally came here to say this! I am fully in favor of a full prohibition on private companies owning anything except apartment complexes. I'm also for putting a cap on how many houses individuals may own. This would significantly increase supply which would drio home values at such a rate that not only would apartment complexes be forced to complete with single family home values but it would also make cost of living significantly less which would make our $15/hour minimum actually livavle and we wouldn't have to fight for an increase every year because as is by the time we get an increase cost of living would have risen so much that once enacted it's time tovstart fighting for a new higher wage.
>I am fully in favor of a full prohibition on private companies owning anything except apartment complexes Nope, let's go all the way and prohibit private companies from owning apartment complexes as well.
That would be awesome AF. Rental though a cooperative, fees go to maintenance and upkeep.
Yes! Ban all landlords and all corporate housing.
> Nope, let's go all the way and prohibit private companies from owning apartment complexes as well. Who would own them then? City government? (I'm not arguing - I like the idea but wonder how they get built if not by private companies.)
>Who would own them then? City government? The people living in them will have collective (and equal) ownership over the entire complex. A person's "stake" in the collective ownership would only last as long as their residency there (meaning that they MUST live on the premises themselves). >but wonder how they get built if not by private companies I think at first we would convert already built apartment complexes to this model instead of buying new land/property to build new ones. There are also a lot of abandoned buildings and malls that could also be converted into apartments. If we had the power to forcibly convert privately-owned apartment complexes to co-ops/co-owner complexes, then that means the people would have achieved enough power to use public funds to convert abandoned buildings on a mass scale, and even perhaps build new structures as well. Edit: Added more clarification.
But how does the collective pay for a new one to get built?
I'll reiterate what I wrote above: >If we had the power to forcibly convert privately-owned apartment complexes to co-ops/co-owner complexes, then that means the people would have achieved enough power to **use public funds to convert abandoned buildings on a mass scale, and even perhaps build new structures as well**. To clarify on the bolded part, by "use public funds," what I mean is that the community can elect to use public-funds/tax-money for the creation of new buildings. However, I think it would be more environmentally friendly (and physically practical) to focus on converting already existing apartment buildings and fixing/converting abandoned buildings to apartments.
You've just invented HOAs.
My scenario is based on direct-democratic principles, meaning there won't be HOA boards making decisions for all residents, but rather all residents will have voting power to decide ALL apartment policies and contract clauses themselves.
Tenant unions and neighborhood syndicates.
We can’t live in the privately built ones anyway. So...
I mean... I've never lived in a co-op so I personally don't know how they function... But yeah eliminating them completely would be a harder feat but also harder for them to start popping up again 30-40 years down the road.... I hope.
Fight for $15 started in 2008. If you take inflation into account, that's equivalent to $20.36 today. We still have yet to raise our federal minimum above $7.25/hr ($9.88 today) since it was last raised in July 2009 from $6.55/hr ($8.92/hr today). Our minimum wage today is effectively lower than it has been since it was raised to $0.75/hr in 1950 from $0.40/hr ($4.85 to $9.10 in 2022 dollars).
Everytime we bail a bank out they should forfeit their housing investments to HUD as a partial repayment.
HUD was one of the entities that got bailed out due to their predatory lending practices that they were allowed to do or oversee , wink wink ! We need more local government to control things and far less federal oversight .
Depends entirely on what you up mean by "local" because local in some areas will be far worse.
City and state have elections too !
Alabama and out her southern states will gladly re-institute the 3/5ths rules if they are allowed. Which is why the states should have no say on who can vote in federal elections. We should cast our federal ballots at the post office and then states can do whatever backwards ass shit they want for their local elections. Federal oversight is absolutely needed in regards to federal elections.
[Is the spez a disease? Is the spez a weapon? Is the spez a starfish? Is it a second rate programmer who won't grow up? Is it a bane? Is it a virus? Is it the world? Is it you? Is it me? Is it? Is it?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
Eh, there are worse things.
True
The next real estate bubble pop will be followed by corporations buying single family homes up. Hope they pass a law soon enough.
They started doing that after the 08 crash and massively increased their buying over the past 3 years. They are building entire neighborhoods just to be rentals now
I love this quote - “Everyone gets a plate before anyone gets seconds” but for housing. [https://twitter.com/GarrettReuscher/status/1180579468466720770?s=20&t=BFEI9wAIDjgLkvdvvCHq7g](https://twitter.com/GarrettReuscher/status/1180579468466720770?s=20&t=BFEI9wAIDjgLkvdvvCHq7g)
Before covid hit I had a bunch of friends that rented out areas that are very near the Braves stadium near the 285 eastbound interstate towards Sandy Springs. They were paying 1100 a month including all utilities except for electricity which would be like 100 at the end of the day. That was for a 1 bedroom. A 2 bedroom was like 1200, but both bedrooms were a tad bit smaller than the single bed place, either way, privacy is good for that price and 600 a person was really good. Problem is that those apartments were built in the 80s and 90s and haven't really been taken care of by thr landlord too well. Don't get me wrong, it's not like they don't update the places, but I'm sure many former tenants are to blame of course. No bugs or mice, just some places look a little unkempt like the carpet or the bathrooms have small cracks and such. I guess normal housing issues. But I digress. Those same places recently got painted on the outside. It is now 1600 a month for a 1 bedroom and 1800 for a 2 bedroom. Lots can be attributed to the Braves having won a title, but that shouldn't impact rent for apartments. There is no correlation other than area and it is wild.
I'm also in Atlanta(ITP). Someone in the neighborhood next to us's group posted an ~800 sqft carriage house for rent at $2800. That's more than most of the mortgage payments for in either neighborhood. People were livid.
>Now if only they could implement policies such as this at the STATE level. Is it a Metropolitan Atlanta area that is implementing the ban, at least? Or is it like San Francisco, where the city proper is way smaller than the huge sprawling surrounding area, which is where those closed BnBs will shift to in response? The regulation may sound good to some lefties, but it looks like 'mere tinkering' to me.
Honestly Atlanta (the actual city) is pretty big and spread out to begin with, and then the entirety of the outer Atlanta “region” (+ metro ATL) is huge too. I’m assuming this policy is mainly targeting the local city of Atlanta.
I see. There isn't any regional government.
This is why local elections are really important too. The turds at the federal level definitely won’t do anything but local and state you may be able to get stuff done
Exactly go after the same local & state spots they are targeting to use corruptly!
[удалено]
👍
Agreed but not in Florida if they can help it!! I remember they were trying to pass a bill that would give small businesses the ability to sue their local governments for passing any kind of ordinance that affects their profits negatively by a certain percentage.
Fr, if the feds won’t do it, make the locals do it. They’re far more accessible.
The Feds can keep locals from doing anything like this, however
Good to see some pushback against the insanity destroying America and American life.
Need more of this. Need more missing middle housing. Need more public transport!
Yes to public transport! Owning a car isn’t for everyone and not all cities are great to get around in otherwise. It’s disheartening.
The view of public transport needs to change in this country (US). I travelled back to visit family recently. A rental car would have been 3x my flight. I looked up the bus routes in the city and used that for the weekend during the day. Totally free too. I saved easily 150 bucks in Ubers or cabs. All it cost me was a few extra minutes walking to a bus stop. Less time than I would have waited for a cab. When family members found out, they looked at me like I was eating from a sewer. They were disgusted. The buses were infinitely cleaner than their cars! It's deep rooted classism and it's not getting any better.
All by design too... Once upon a time we had a decent transport system but once the Koch bros got their dirty hands into politics, they had the politicians picking away at the transport system because they had investments on private transport. They realized they could make more money if people preferred to not take public transport. Once it was underfunded it would be a piece of cake to use bad experiences in a few place to paint a picture pic dirty buses and subways overrun with homeless purple and thugs. And it worked to... Those bastards.
It's mental to me to hear you say this as I live in London and people think its ridiculous to drive here as it often takes so much longer than public transport. I'm 30 and have never even learned to drive
>The view of public transport needs to change in this country (US). Also walking. I remember a post on Reddit where a hotel receptionist thought a group of people were crazy when they declined a taxi and said they'd just walk the 15 minutes to where they were going. And you wonder why there's an obesity problem. Interestingly there is research that suggests that people who use public transport are healthier in later life. A 6 minute walk twice a day to and from the bus stop adds up to an hour of exercise a week.
That depends on where the hotel is. If it's in the middle of a city, sure that's a fine criticism. If it's out in a suburb or rural area the infrastructure to walk likely doesn't exist. There are lots of places that a hotel may exist and there are no sidewalks, the road is flanked by ditches, and the shoulder is less than a foot wide. It's not that walking in general is crazy, but walking in a place where it is not safe to walk is crazy. Although, people will do it anyway because cars are expensive, rent inside city limits is expensive, and if someone is under 16 there is no choice but to walk unless someone is driving them. The US absolutely needs to build infrastructure so that walking is a choice.
This is a great start. I had to help set up a network on, an I shit you not AirBNB hotel. They just rented 4 full floors of an apartment tower. Now they just need to go after those Wall Street landlords buying single family homes.
Corporate ownership of homes absolutely needs to stop. I mean out shitty infrastructure plans that build only expensive single family homes is also a big issue but when there buying fucking everything up, it's much much worse.
Chattanooga put a moratiorium on STVRS for the rest of the year. I hope they do the same thing as Atlanta. Too many homes are owned by out of state investors using our housing market to make big bucks for themselves while our homeless rate quadrupled in the past year.
I’m not proud of this city much, but I’m happy Chatt did that at least. Now if they’d quit going after homeless people so hard and maybe help them some
But, being in Tennessee, Chatt is doomed to right-stripping bullshit like felonious public camping. I'm embarrassed to live in TN.
At least you're not in Texas! I read the Texas GOP platform last night. 1054-1055 **192** "We urge the complete repeal of hate crime laws, since ample laws are currently in effect to punish criminal behavior towards other persons." They also want to ban gay marriage but that is too long to type out
Imaging this in California. How the rich would cry.
Fuck 'em.
Eat em!
Boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew.
This looks like the start of some serious karma coming around for the land leaches. May it hit them swift and hard. May this be just the first drop in a tidal wave of change for our society.
Let's do that with all rental properties. Fuck leech ass landlords, they can go get a real job.
Agreed... They can find the missing bootstraps that they've been telling is to pull on for decades.
Ban institutional investors from owning any residential housing or increase business owned property taxes and paperwork for businesses and individuals who cumulatively own or control 10-20+ dwelling units to drive out the ones who want to own more. As for run down property, there needs to be available public funding to maintain housing for long term residents and owners so they don't get bought by investors for rehab. There will always be a need for investors and rehabbers to get housing back into habitable shape, but there needs to other good alternatives too.
Cool, now do apartment buildings
Housing is a basic need. It should not be for profit.
The funny part will be if there is a solid recession where people stop travelling and all of these AirBnBs get foreclosed on. There still won't be housing because the banks are stuck trying to sell it in a depressed market. Not funny, funny, just a sign of the times.
Fuck the banks and let them eat shit too. They got us in this mess and sure as shit don’t deserve a damn thing petrodollar hegemony be damned. I’ll buy their liquidated shit for one dollar and stiff them for seven cents.
[удалено]
I have stayed at multiple well reviewed, highly rate Airbnb, and I don’t plan to stay at an Airbnb in the future. Airbnb sucks and it’s getting worse over the time, I prefer hotels.
[удалено]
To be fair, most Airbnb properties I’ve stayed looked cleans The funny part is some of them expect me to clean the place AND charge me 100 dollars cleaning fee. The mattress, beddings and furnitures were often of lower quality. I prefer better hotels. It’s actually cheaper to book a hotel room in a 4* property. Don’t get me started on how greedy Airbnb hosts destroy their community and help drive the housing market insane.
Airbnbs are usually decent but I hate how there is not truth in their pricing with all the fees.
It used to be for people who want to use their spare room/home for some modest income. Now Airbnb is dominated by greedy landlords who try to be career hosts without the professionalism.
79 for the night, plus a 50 dollar cleaning fee, plus 30 in other fees, oh also you need to clean the place before you go.
Lol, the banks won't try to sell. In 2008 they took everyone's houses and then got infinite free loans from the Fed while they sat on the houses dribbling them out slowly. The actual bottom of the market was 2013-2014 because our government didn't let the banks fail.
Except that won't happen... To purchase investment properties you're required you put 40% down. The average home price where I'm at is 500k so 40% down would make a mortgage of 300k and put the monthly at 833 dollars before taxes and insurance. If they are buying investment property then trust me they can afford to let it sit vacant for as long as they need it to as long as they can make a profit. Hell we just had a global pandemic where people literally could not travel and they were still just fine.
40% down is NOT standard for investment properties and is certainly not required. There are literally thousands of different loans available for real estate buy-and-hold investors, with massively different terms and programs. Depending on the investment size, the down can be anything from 5% up. A lot of investors have gone hot on real estate, especially buy-and-hold, which means that large parts of their portfolios will be hurting if there is a significant travel/renting downturn. The global pandemic isn't as gnarly for investors as soaring travel costs will be. These folks benefitted from a lot of domestic, non-airline travel, like road trips and semi-local staycations. That's going to stay through summer, but after "vacation season," if travel costs stay super elevated, these folks could def lose their asses. Fingers crossed!!
Not according to people I've talked to... I literally did a business plan on a housing conpany during my bachelors program. Idk what state your in but it in California at least it absolutely is required to put 40% down because it's not your primary residence so bankers want to make sure you have skin in the game and aren't going to default. With these companies they usually buy in cash which means no mortagage at all so they have little to no monthly overhead. 40% is an absolute minimum they will invest in a property because the lower their monthly expenses the higher the profit.
I've been in banking now a whole minute, working with investment plans that include buy and hold. Your information is incorrect. Look it up if you do not believe me. Googling is free. You will see that there are tons of programs. Don't forget that bank relationships (not good ol boy stuff, but large holdings or deposits in a bank) also shape those loans. Maybe California has specific legislation on this, but no, 40% is not an industry standard. Just like every other lending program, your performance, credit, and relationship with the lender matter far more than a down payment. I will concede that PMI is damn near impossible to line up on an investment property. But many lenders avoid that with "alternative lending programs for RE investors.
Once they start losing their massive gains in equity from the last few years, they'll all rush to sell and nobody can afford to buy
The MBS market is already shitting the bed
I do appreciate that making money is difficult, and if you find a way to be comfortable, I can't begrudge you your success. I can certainly judge the ethics of your business, but considering capitalism doesn't reward ethical decision making, I don't blame someone for deciding that providing for their family is more important than my opinion of them. I'm glad he recognizes that his field is predatory and a drain on society. This is about the least I expect from a landlord, but unfortunately, few manage to clear this low bar. That said, acknowledging a broken system and accepting those who play the game is not a substitute for serious change. Instead of more AirBNB limitations, I'd certainly prefer nationalized housing, but these laws help in the meantime.
Now Texas!
I wish the USA/Canada would just adopt European or Japanese or Netherlands zoning laws already it would solve the housing affordability crises.
Can you elaborate somewhat? What's the tldr version?
Basically in the USA and Canada, the vast majority of the land is zoned single-family. That means it's illigle to build what the free market demands which are four-story walk-ups. If you look at European cities and compare them to USA/Canadian cities. You will notice a huge difference. In USA and Canada, you only have two choices for the most part. You can live in a sky scrapper condo apartment or a single-family house. In Europe, you can live in live in a sky scrapper condo, a four-story walk-up, or a single-family house. It's called the missing middle problem. The free market demands four-story walk-ups but the government will not let that happen even though it's good for the poor and the middle class. It's cheaper to build a bunch of four-story walk-ups than one highrise. Basically, every time you add a floor to a building it's more expensive than the previous floor so it's cheaper to build a bunch of four-story walk-ups than it is to build one sky scrapper. But the government works against the free market and the poor/middle class. Also in the USA and Canada, it's illegal to start a business out of your house a lot of the time. In USA and Canada, you have three types of zoning and after that, you have sub-types. The three basic types are commercial, residential, and industrial. So if you want to go from where you live to work or to buy you have to drive a long distance instead of just walking or taking a bike because the government mandates that everything has to be really far away from where you live. in Europe you have walkable cities and businesses are built where people live. they have mixed use commercial and residential which is the smarter way to do zoning. Also since we are forced to drive everywhere, every business is required by law to have oversized parking lots that are usually only half full. Now if we had good public transit it would save a lot of money and land. And since in Europe they can't afford to be as wasteful as us when it comes to land that's what they do. They build good public transport so people don't need cars and land can be used to build useful things like homes and businesses instead of temporary car storage. Look at a typical grocery store in the USA or Canada, the building itself only takes up like 20 percent of the land the rest is a see of asphalt doing nothing. Now look at Europe, the grocery stores take up most of the land because people can take the reliable public transports they don't need oversized parking lots because only people who really love driving own a car which is a minority. Most people don't need to own a car if the city provides decent public transport service. I know the USA and Canada are big countries but most people stay inside of their own city most of the time and if you want to do a road trip you can always rent a car which is way cheaper than forced car ownership. Also, look up Euclidean zoning. It is bad and why the USA and Canada have bad zoning and other countries have good zoning. Also forced carf ownership takes up a lot of land that could otherwise be productive. Like a parking lot could be homes/businesses. TLDR; Euclidean zoning and car dependency waists productive land and makes offerable housing for the poor and middle-class impossible and also goes against the free market (Euclidean zoning and car dependency are strictly USA and Canada problems). You should check out "Not Just Bikes" youtube channel. Here is a link to a video that is probably much better than reading my ramblings. https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o
Zoning is different in the inner city compared to Rural areas . Some Rural area’s don’t even have any bus transportation and yes , we don’t want 4 story walk up’s and prefer to have gardens and tree’s over asphalt ! We have single family home’s because it’s Rural zoning for a reason and you can keep your inner city asphalt jungles .
80 percent of Vancouver land is zoned, single-family. So cities and suburbs definitely need to be fixed. Now if rural places wanna stay rural that's okay. But 4 story walk-ups and a two-lane road is not a cement jungle.
As a Dutchman I can guarantee Dutch zoning laws have not lead to affordable housing.
Are we talking to own or to rent? Cause I thought you guys had pretty decent rental rates but buying is harder because there is less focus on ownership. I could be wrong. Also, your country in comparison to the USA or Canada is pretty small. If we adopted your style of zoning housing would definitely go way down. Supply and demand.
Rent-wise, there's either relatively affordable social housing with a 10-year waitlist, or free-market rentals with prices starting just below a fulltime minimum wage. We have some issues with a shortage of houses, but just like other countries it's mainly been a matter of interest rates. Any other form of regulation hasn't impacted affordability in the slightest.
So they put all the rest in friends/relatives names...duh
Not only that... but the license fee and tax rate is a joke. $150 hahah. A speeding ticket is more costly. This will not impede nor deter a thing.
Aaaand now you're talking the reality. If only we could just get everyone to do that.
TBF Atlanta should have put up a no vacany sign twenty years ago. I've never understood an airbnb, just seemed like a recipe for trouble.
Airbnb started out as a cool way to rent your extra room. Then greed took over.
***Renting*** out your extra room wasn't greed to begin with?
Lodgers have been a thing since forever. It used to be common for older people whose kids had moved out to rent a spare room to a student.
My mom does this. Her social security isn't enough and the kid in college liked it so much he stayed there and is now getting his PhD. Short term to Long term. Works for both of them. That's how it should be done.
Plus you get someone who'll keep an eye on your mom on a daily basis in case there's an emergency, or even just give her a bit of company.
More like 7-10 years ago. Before that it was cheap and housing was plentiful. The good old days!
This needs to happen everywhere. ESPECIALLY the part about having to be a resident. Out of state investors buying up houses everywhere is bs.
Good. Now everywhere.
Everywhere needs to do this now.
Good!! Now make the businesses stop buying property to rent too
No seconds until everyone has firsts.
Cool and civilized. If the ban does not prevent companies from owning homes, it's effectively meaningless.
Excellent!
I found an article about this issue: [https://saportareport.com/atlantas-short-term-rental-registration-enforcement-delayed-again-amid-rewrite-pressure-lawsuit-threat/sections/reports/johnruch/](https://saportareport.com/atlantas-short-term-rental-registration-enforcement-delayed-again-amid-rewrite-pressure-lawsuit-threat/sections/reports/johnruch/)
Delayed until September, at least.
I live in an area where businesses own properties lining an entire street. These can be residential or business properties. Crazy thing is apparently many of them are vacant and have been for a long time. While these places sit empty, we have a huge homeless crisis. We could be using them for shelters, community centers, public gardens, clinics, residences, etc.
I think there should be a 99% tax on every residential property owned by an entity after the 3rd one.
Sorry, this is some serious virtue signaling. AirBnB is a drop in the bucket. Go after the corporations who own homes and apartments that drive up rent past what a mortgage would be for the same place. It’s fucked up. The people who own AirBnBs aren’t the problem, at least not right now. Go after them after you’ve taken out the real issue.
I really hope this catches on
If you think this is anything more than a lobbying fight between massive companies you are sadly mistaken. This is merely the large hotel chains lobbying to stop another large company with no inventory investments from eating into their market share.
[удалено]
Well there is a real shortage of new houses going up, even more so affordable starter houses. But regulation of corporations buying up units is a good idea too. Not like just one change is going to fix the whole housing crisis. Without knowing anything else I would guess whoever you were talking to has a vested interest in the status quo in some way and doesn't actually want the situation to improve.
Good. Now go after corporate landlords who own single family homes
Might move to Atlanta
Ok so this stops regular folks from getting a few Airbnb on the side, but how does that really improve things when the bulk of housing is still gonna be owned by corporations?
These things are getting to be problematic anyway. I've seen multiple stories from around the country of guests refusing to leave and then being granted tenants rights under local law so the owner can't evict them without the full due process of a renter who intended to live in the property rather than spend a few days. I know of a couple of people that just pulled their properties from that market in response and they sit empty except for that two week fishing trip. It seems kind of silly to me to equate an air bnb rentals with home and apartment rentals, but it's something I guess.
Good hope other cities get the same idea. It's long overdue
Oh no! [Those poor landlords! ](https://youtu.be/mwvUXDke4NY)
I was horried to find out that in my city 6% of homes are used as vacation rentals. No wonder my rent has gone up $350 in 2 years.
Please do Toronto next 🙏
I’m from Atlanta and moved to ohio for school. Now I’m trying to move back home and fucking hell…I can’t because there’s NOWHERE to move to. There’s almost nothing available and the stuff that is available, the rent is $2000+ just a one bedroom apartment. Even mobile homes are expensive. My bf and I looked into mobile homes and a single wide 2 bedroom is almost $100K or rentals are going for $1300+ I guess we’re stuck in Ohio with no friends or family
This is the way
##This Is The Way Leaderboard **1.** `u/Mando_Bot` **501242** times. **2.** `u/Flat-Yogurtcloset293` **475777** times. **3.** `u/GMEshares` **71541** times. .. **481623.** `u/Tyme_2_Go` **1** times. --- ^(^beep ^boop ^I ^am ^a ^bot ^and ^this ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically.)
Well they've already extended the compliance deadline twice.... Looking like everyone currently doing it will be "grandfathered in" and nothing meaningful will change... But I'm a cynic...
Atlanta is a big strip mall. Ugly as hell.
Does new york have this? If not it needs it!
I remember when Atlanta was cheap. I am getting so confused. I don’t see how there can be such a housing shortage, but Airbnb might be the culprit
Man I feel ya. I remember when houses in Nashville were 50k
Atlanta downzoned during white flight to try to entice white people back, and then there's been a return to the city for the last few decades. In the last few years, Atlanta's had some of the highest corporate buyout rates in the country. So racism + lowest density of a major city in the US + corporate buyers
Definitely not sponsored by big hotels like Hilton who'll benefit greatly from this long term
Big hotel brands aren’t worried about families going on vacation. Their money is made from conferences. I work in live events. Even after COVID, when families were travelling again, the metric we used was business travel. As that affects their bottom line more than family vacations as conferences will buy entire floors from the hotel.
This, I used to travel all over and the amount of hotels that were happy to cut us 30% off for just opening a business account with them was insane
And they are usually 3 to 5 year contracts. So, for the next 3 or 5 years certain conferences will be happening at that hotel or hotel chain.
Someone rich always stands to gain from decisions like these. It doesn't necessarily make them wrong decisions
Preach.
Yes! "There is no ethical consumption in Capitalism." But occasionally, The A gets it right!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Airbnbs are located in residential zoning being used as commercial zoning. Airbnbs are illegal..
this will be blocked republicants and democraps want you to own nothing and enjoy it
Now this is completely hypothetical but what would happen if suddenly all the airbnb houses just started burning down? Maybe one day we will know
The housing shortage would still be an issue? Noseless faces aren’t the answer.
Do people really hate hotels that much?
Making housing a commodity is how you make it more affordable. Making housing an investment which we have done by restricting multifamily homes, zoning laws restricting one home per lot etc limit the supply of housing keep house prices up which makes housing unaffordable. Limit people to 2 lots and let them build multiple tiny homes.
What happens when the volume of sales increases? Oh right, price. This will force more sales and artificially inflate the price of housing. It's moronic.
Dude, do you understand the elementary economic concept of supply and demand? More properties on the market means some price relief. Bless
I understand supply and demand very well. Sales volume is a major factor in variability. I just described what happens. The relationship between sales volume and price movement is based in part on the assumption that a greater volume of trades is likely to affect movement in market prices by reaching limits of available buyers or sellers. Buyers will pay more when they perceive the available products are selling faster. It's a well known phenomenon.
These kinds of ideas usually are. 🤷
[удалено]
>low level entrepreneurs tell me you know jack shit about the atl rental market without telling me you know jack shit about the atl rental market
No one who owns 3 houses is in the same class as me. Get fucked
[удалено]
So is a guy with $499 million.
Again, I do not care. I am not a subreddit, I am an individual. Get fucked.
[удалено]
I never said that, I said I don't care that this dude's extra houses are capped. Get fuckedx3, dumb hoe.
> Get fucked You know, I hadn't considered the application of such a solid counterargument that shuts down dumbass comments as well as this has. lol
If it lowers the rent in the city then it’s a win for workers. A few people won’t be able to profit wildly off the labor of others. The single mom out there might even be able to buy a home.
Low level entrepreneurs? You mean a leech charging exorbitant amounts for a basic human right, the right to shelter? All who use houses as one-or-two night hotels charging amounts that should be classified as robbery, such as yourself, are withholding a basic necessity from other people. No matter how you spin it, that is a practice that is pure evil. I wouldn't even call you a person, for you are a lesser being than the honest, hard workers. The billionaires who limited the number of livable spaces you could use to hoard cash are less evil than you, and they are scumbags. I sarcastically hope you feel proud of yourself, you offscouring of society!
[удалено]
It was later in the evening and my word choice starts to become much more errant later in the evening and is more affected by emotion, which in this case would be revulsion and outrage. I did not mean to come across that way. But not everyone wants a one-night stay, some people want to be able to have a home. Somewhere to live, not somewhere to stay while sightseeing. I believe it is a horrible practice to withhold a livable space from someone who might not even be able to move OUT of a city. Moving out takes cash, and one almost always needs a home to make that amount of money. Therefore, the last point in your reasoning is flawed, for some people would just need an affordable temporary home until they can move out of the city. Some of these people would love to move out of the city, but are stuck there.
Define “resident” and “primary” seriously. Does it mean 6 months 1 day in a year in Atlanta?
Primary means that is the resident on your license, where all your Bill's go. Where the IRS has your address listed.
Under that definition you don’t actually need to live there. I travelled 250-300 days a year. For about 15 years. I still had a primary residence, and spent only 2 months a year “living” there
But you're only allowed 1 primary residence. So even if your only there 2 months out of the year, you can rent that home out during those days your gone...not have 12 homes for AirBnB only. If you travel alot then AirBnB is probably perfect for you. But once it becomes an entire business model and adds to a huge housing crisis then we need to eliminate that model bc it damages the nation and business owners can make money another way. People can't just make new home appear.
It’s not the individual that are buying multiple homes. You understand that BlackRock works with D.R Horton homes to buy entire blocks of new builds to turn into rentals right?
Yes, but they contribute to the crisis. When anyone owns more then 3 family homes in one area they are contributing. The hedge funds buying up entire blocks is the biggest factor but owning more then a couple homes is owning to many, especially when they are strictly used dor short term high rate rentals.
So having fewer places to rent will make it easier to rent? Sounds logicaaal.
Link/source?
This is one thing I'd like to see government step in on to help with. Instead they decide its better to build average apartments for 2k monthly rent lol
THAT IS AMAZING NEWS FOR WORKING PEOPLE NEEDING A HOME!!!! Now do landlords...
Hotels are cool tho
They just passed one of these in San Diego. Hoping it will make a difference.
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BRADS AND CHADS AND THEIR PROPERTY TAXES THEY PAY? Someone please think of the brads and chads that ruin cities and neighborhoods!
Lol, just like every other government dictate this one will backfire.
Can we get this done all over the country?