As everyone and their mother has already pointed out, someone will buy it to live in. But also, you know, refusing to take part in a corrupt and unjust system?
They will buy it, live in it, and another unit of housing stock is now unavailable. That will reduce general availability, and push up prices. If that tenant wasn’t such a self centred, selfish asshole, the owner would have kept renting it at a loss, and availability would still be there. This is a two sided story, and many landlords are in the same situation. They are not all these insane, evil, wealthy monsters the internet makes them out to be.
Yet the cycle would continue. What’s the point?
As everyone and their mother has already pointed out, someone will buy it to live in. But also, you know, refusing to take part in a corrupt and unjust system?
They will buy it, live in it, and another unit of housing stock is now unavailable. That will reduce general availability, and push up prices. If that tenant wasn’t such a self centred, selfish asshole, the owner would have kept renting it at a loss, and availability would still be there. This is a two sided story, and many landlords are in the same situation. They are not all these insane, evil, wealthy monsters the internet makes them out to be.
This isn’t a problem if the person that buys the property lives in it.
You are just being dense on purpose to give a bad faith argument.
Because the person who lives in the home would be the person who owns the home, thereby ending the cycle of landlord woes.