‘This is stealing’ ; Instagram account lets you squat in metro homes

kalkulat@lemmy.world to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.world – 176 points –
‘This is stealing’ Channel 2 goes undercover as Instagram account lets you squat in metro homes
news.yahoo.com
123

You are viewing a single comment

It's my opinion that housing is so basic a need that no house should be allowed to use for a gambling chip.

The 'housing market' needs to be broken in favor of individual ownership. (For many, speculation has driven ownership out of reach.)

Only individuals may purchase individual homes, and must agree to occupy them as their primary and only residences until they sell and vacate them. (Live-in landlords included, e.g. boarders.)

As part of the deal, they must first find another individual buyer (under the same terms) for their present home.

(Futher stipluations needed, but none that permit violation of the above principle. )

Also a lot more housing co-ops

I don't think speculation is a big factor, actually. Rentals don't earn money without renters and they don't appreciate nearly fast enough to make up for the lack of income.

In my country at least there's just measurably less houses than there needs to be.

they don’t appreciate nearly fast enough to make up for the lack of income.

depends on where you are. i bought a new house 3 years ago and within a year the value of my house had increased nearly 100k.

That's one hot market.

Most of the time they don't do that, though, and there's a good chance if you had rented it out the wear and tear would not have reduced that value very much, so there's still not a lot of "opportunity cost".

to be fair it's leveled out since. it's still up that much, but didn't continue the meteoric rise.

So no vacation homes at all?

And what constitutes an individual? A family unit? Or can you own two houses when you're married, one per adult?

My view is that you can own more than one home but with progressive property taxes and no corporation should be able to own a house, or even a property. I'm in two minds about properties they inhabit.

No residential property I assume? I guess apartments would need some new form of owning entity. In Sweden we have "bostadsrättsförening" which is basically an organization where your personal say is proportional to how much you own (i.e. how large your apartment compared to the total). Of course it has its drawbacks, especially if there is no resident that actually understands how to handle economy and plan maintenance that has to be a joint effort. Or if you have someone that embezzles.

An apartment-building owner WHO LIVES IN the building year-around might be in accord. (My own GG-ma ran a boarding-home for income after her husband died.)

Nobody gets seconds until everyone has had a plate

Sure but from my understanding the problem in the US (and most places) isn't that there isn't room. The sum of empty houses/apartments is greater than the amount of homeless. It's more distribution and logistics.

So we drop demand by outlawing many forms of ownership but with lower prices from that drop its reasonable to expect an increase in demand for the most popular places / places with a good salary and strong job market.

This then naturally moves the spot with available homes further from the major areas. People with low/no means are they then expected to move there to not be homeless? Even if there's no career prospects or even jobs?

If we cap relocation how is that handled? Are you not allowed to move into and buy a new home in say San Francisco, LA or NY?

And how much relocation are we mandating for the homeless?

If we remove the free market there is an extreme demand for very thoughtful, planned out rules which need to be airtight because people exploit everything and every loophole will be found.

And if we don't eliminate the free market, just limit who can own, then how do we avoid the aforementioned problems of accelerating urbanization? Such that we don't equalize at the exact same prices just private owned instead of corporate owned.

Needs discussion. I'm more concerned for kids -never being able- to buy a home. "Owner-built", no problem.

"needs discussion" because you didn't really think anything through, you just shout slogans on "how it would work" without any bearing on reality or the current housing situation.

What kind of a weird stance is: If you don't have all the answers the moment we talk about something your point is invalid.

"I don't know, we will need to discuss" is a valid answer to follow up questions.

You are strawmanning right now. I didn't say "you don't have an answer to one question". I said "you don't have any answers, and the answers you have wouldn't work in the real world". "We will need to discuss" in this comment was exactly that - no idea what to do, no idea on any ramifications, just "we got to do something!" with zero knowledge on the subject.

oh yay an easy one

  1. yes, no vacation homes at all
  2. yes, a family unit

it’s actually not that hard