[Draft] Housing for the privileged?

[Searls]

[Name] Housing for the privileged?
[Desc] A rant has gone viral of a tenant with their landlord concerning anecdotes about moving up in the world, especially home ownership. This has stirred heated debate about the status of @@NAME@@'s real estate and who actually owns it.

[Validity] Must have a free market.

[option] "A house is no longer a place to call home anymore. It's a just box to try to 'live' in and dole out inflated rent that goes to nothing but to pad the pockets of landlords like this old goat," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the tenant, dressed in tattered clothes. "Barely anyone in my age bracket owns one, while old farts like this have all the land! What kind of nation is it when only a few people own all the houses?! The government needs to step in and do something!"
[effect] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ can only own one house, and not too expensive, either.

[option] "I don't understand what the issue is. I saved my @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ like any sensible @@DEMONYM@@ and bought an extra house back when it was cheap," grumbles @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, the landlord, in his tacky plaid golf pants and polo shirt. "Renting it out was the smart thing to do to help with income when I retired since that measly government stipend doesn't pay for squat! And I'm the criminal?! I earned this and these snot-nosed brats need to understand the value of the @@CURRENCY@@ and get a real job!"
[effect] School counselors lecture students about "acceptable" jobs.

[option] A man in a sharp, expensive suit barges in, while trying to talk on the phone at the same time. "@@LEADER, the housing market is the best its been in years! --BUY IT AT ALL COSTS! I DON'T CARE IF IT'S ABOVE ASKING PRICE--There is absolutely nothing wrong with this set up. Because of how things have been, I own fifty homes and have flipped hundreds now. And you know what? I used to be a school teacher. HA!--GIVE ME THAT DAMN HOUSE FOR VIOLET'S SAKE!" as he storms out.
[effect] The smallest house in @@NAME@@ just sold for one million @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@.

[Candensia]

The premise just doesn't ring true to me.

I can see debates between tenants and landlords over rental responsibilities and tenant rights, but not a debate over who actually owns the property itself.

[Daarwyrth]

But you already determined in the issue premise who owns what. If there is a landlord, they're the owner. A tenant is not the owner by the very meaning of the word "tenant". The same applies to "landlord".

If you want a debate along the lines of what Candensia said, namely who has what responsibilities, then I could see the potential for an issue around that. Perhaps it could be something about landlords being lax in fixing things, or tenants breaking stuff on purpose so the landlord has to repair or replace them.

[Baizou]

Property redistribution certainly seems like a matter that could be treated in an issue. Though in that case the ending line of the premise, "who actually owns it," seems like it ought to read, "who should have the right to own it" or "who should rightfully own it."

[Bears Armed]

Property redistribution certainly seems like a matter that could be treated in an issue.

It already has been.

[Baizou]

It already has been.

Ah, housing redistribution has already been tackled in an issue? That is good to know! Well, it's unfortunate news for Searls, as they'll have to completely rework their issue draft. But better to know now than after submitting.

It can be difficult, as a commenter, to know what has and hasn't been tackled in an issue. I had trusted Searls to already have looked into it. Daarwyrth also apparently did not realize housing redistribution had already been addressed in a prior issue—they didn't bring it up, at least. Even Candensia, who is an issues editor, did not bring that up and in fact seemed incredulous that the idea could be an issue at all. Good memory, Bears Armed!

[Searls]

The premise just doesn't ring true to me.

I can see debates between tenants and landlords over rental responsibilities and tenant rights, but not a debate over who actually owns the property itself.

So, I'm still not understanding when to be verbose and when not to.

A rant has gone viral of a tenant with their landlord concerning anecdotes about moving up in the world, especially home ownership.

The tenant is complaining about high rent that most of their paycheck goes toward:

...dole out inflated rent that goes to nothing but to pad the pockets of landlords like this old goat...

The landlord is a fussy and proud character that pulled himself up by the bootstraps and earned his living and is completely oblivious to present-day issues with income inequality and inflation:

I saved my @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ like any sensible @@DEMONYM@@ and bought an extra house back when it was cheap... Renting it out was the smart thing to do to help with income when I retired since that measly government stipend doesn't pay for squat! And I'm the criminal?! I earned this and these snot-nosed brats need to understand the value of the @@CURRENCY@@ and get a real job!

The ownership is issue is amplified by the house flipper and renter who used to, like the retired fellow above, save his pennies while a school teacher and got into real estate which blossomed into a boon of wealth and is now without any regard for anyone but himself in his capitalistic ventures signifying the unceasing need to buy more, flip more, inflate more furthering the divide between affordable homes and pushing the real estate more into rental territory, which has its own futility.

I'm using a real-life scenario in my area and make it my own to showcase the disparity between regular people who will only own one home at a time and those taking advantage shrinking the supply and broadening the rental landscape. This is not about redistribution, but limiting the capitalism of real estate to make home ownership fairer. And thus "This has stirred heated debate about the status of @@NAME@@'s real estate and who actually owns it."

[Australian rePublic]

Wow, this is ignorant. Not all landlords are billionaire tycoons. Some are, definately, but many of them rely soley on their rental property as their only source of income, and without it, they would be screwed. Others rely on them to subsidies their subpar pension. Not to mention many landlords are themselves paying mortgages on their investment properties. This is very 0one dimensional and fails to actual take into account the actual situation of actual landlords.

Also, this only addresses the issue from the perspective from residential tenants. How would this apply to business tenants? How would this apply to short term (holiday) tenants?

[Searls]

I'm trying to weigh out where I'm going wrong in my writing and where people are getting carried away with analyzing this. These are the only points I'm making and need help bridging the gaps:

Rent is a concern to the tenant who has complained to the landlord, which apparently created a heated debate that was caught on video by a passerby. It is debatable if the passerby is in agreement with either party or is simply wanting to get views. The nature of the passerby is neither here nor there, something that seems to be common in most posters. The landlord is someone being financially smart and has invested to a pragmatic degree and feels that if someone simply applies themselves, they can be financially stable. The economic backdrop, however, is not easily warranting such independence for the younger generation who seems to be under thumb of inflation and being underpaid. The latter fellow is supposed to represent another kind of indifference to the worse off: being very aggressive with his early newfound success, he's engrossed in capitalism to gain more wealth by not worrying about price of anything and can flip something for a greater price giving a sense that people of his sort are an underlying problem to rising costs. That is the only point I'm making.