• yo_scottie_oh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The renter has no real choice

    See, I don’t buy this. The renter may not like the other options because they’re in a less desirable neighborhood or farther out from the city center, but that is not the same as having no choice.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      In my experience prices don’t vary that much across cities, you’d have to move far away to actually get a cheaper rent. Doing that means finding a new job and all sorts of other difficulties.

      In any case, the tenancy simple isn’t worth the rent that’s charged. If owning the property you live in is worth some amount, then renting it should be worth less.

      • yo_scottie_oh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is why we’re just not going to agree—you’re saying because the property owner does not live there, they should operate at a loss, which I disagree with.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not a loss though. They’re buying a property, they get to keep the property at the end of it - and further the property will almost certainly increase in value.

          Why should the tenant pay more than it costs to own a property, if they don’t get to own anything?

          If a landlord doesn’t like the opportunity because it isn’t profitable enough, they could always sell the property - creating more opportunity for renters to buy their own homes. Right now, with no rent control, the system is pure exploitation.