NationStates

Ifreann wrote:And landlords are different from businesses providing other kinds of rental services. Everything else people rent is something they only want or need for a limited period of time, and the service provider keeps a stock of that available for people to use for a few hours or days or whatever it is. But people who are renting somewhere to live, they're not in town for just a week, they're living in that place for years. They're renting a house, not because they only need to live there temporarily, but because they need to live there for the foreseeable future and can't afford to buy. And one of the reasons they can't afford to buy is that someone who only needed one place to live went and bought two or three or a thousand and is renting out what they're not using.

Actually, the average tenant only stays in a single place for 2.5 to 3 years.

That is "years", multiple, but not "the foreseeable future". Most renters are fairly transitory, moving around every 2-3 years.

https://tenantplanet.com/how-long-does-a-tenant-stay/

Galloism wrote:

Ifreann wrote:And landlords are different from businesses providing other kinds of rental services. Everything else people rent is something they only want or need for a limited period of time, and the service provider keeps a stock of that available for people to use for a few hours or days or whatever it is. But people who are renting somewhere to live, they're not in town for just a week, they're living in that place for years. They're renting a house, not because they only need to live there temporarily, but because they need to live there for the foreseeable future and can't afford to buy. And one of the reasons they can't afford to buy is that someone who only needed one place to live went and bought two or three or a thousand and is renting out what they're not using.

Actually, the average tenant only stays in a single place for 2.5 to 3 years.

That is "years", multiple, but not "the foreseeable future". Most renters are fairly transitory, moving around every 2-3 years.

https://tenantplanet.com/how-long-does-a-tenant-stay/

2-3 years is the foreseeable future, though: I've moved into several homes intending to live there indefinitely, and am yet to last more than 2 years in one (primarily to get away from fucking useless landlords).

Salandriagado wrote:

Galloism wrote:Actually, the average tenant only stays in a single place for 2.5 to 3 years.

That is "years", multiple, but not "the foreseeable future". Most renters are fairly transitory, moving around every 2-3 years.

https://tenantplanet.com/how-long-does-a-tenant-stay/

2-3 years is the foreseeable future, though: I've moved into several homes intending to live there indefinitely, and am yet to last more than 2 years in one (primarily to get away from fucking useless landlords).

Not really.

Average time for a homeowner is 13 years.

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economist ... heir-homes

That's the foreseeable future.

Galloism wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
2-3 years is the foreseeable future, though: I've moved into several homes intending to live there indefinitely, and am yet to last more than 2 years in one (primarily to get away from fucking useless landlords).

Not really.

Average time for a homeowner is 13 years.

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economist ... heir-homes

That's the foreseeable future.

I'd argue that the difference is likely almost purely due to a mixture of (1) people buying houses, and (2) shitty landlords. Both of those would be avoided by Iffy's proposals.

Galloism wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
2-3 years is the foreseeable future, though: I've moved into several homes intending to live there indefinitely, and am yet to last more than 2 years in one (primarily to get away from fucking useless landlords).

Not really.

Average time for a homeowner is 13 years.

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economist ... heir-homes

That's the foreseeable future.

I’ve given up on the prospect of ever owning a home. It’s become nothing but a dream for many people now

Salandriagado wrote:

Galloism wrote:Not really.

Average time for a homeowner is 13 years.

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economist ... heir-homes

That's the foreseeable future.

I'd argue that the difference is likely almost purely due to a mixture of (1) people buying houses, and (2) shitty landlords. Both of those would be avoided by Iffy's proposals.

Yes - renting is inherently more flexible than owning, and you pay for the privilege of flexibility.

Galloism wrote:

Ifreann wrote:And landlords are different from businesses providing other kinds of rental services. Everything else people rent is something they only want or need for a limited period of time, and the service provider keeps a stock of that available for people to use for a few hours or days or whatever it is. But people who are renting somewhere to live, they're not in town for just a week, they're living in that place for years. They're renting a house, not because they only need to live there temporarily, but because they need to live there for the foreseeable future and can't afford to buy. And one of the reasons they can't afford to buy is that someone who only needed one place to live went and bought two or three or a thousand and is renting out what they're not using.

Actually, the average tenant only stays in a single place for 2.5 to 3 years.

That is "years", multiple, but not "the foreseeable future". Most renters are fairly transitory, moving around every 2-3 years.

https://tenantplanet.com/how-long-does-a-tenant-stay/

Actually, do you know why we are "fairly transitory"? Landlords. Either constantly increasing the rent, or being slumlords, or being total Karens, or a combination thereof. Transitory living is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.

Grenartia wrote:

Galloism wrote:Actually, the average tenant only stays in a single place for 2.5 to 3 years.

That is "years", multiple, but not "the foreseeable future". Most renters are fairly transitory, moving around every 2-3 years.

https://tenantplanet.com/how-long-does-a-tenant-stay/

Actually, do you know why we are "fairly transitory"? Landlords. Either constantly increasing the rent, or being slumlords, or being total Karens, or a combination thereof. Transitory living is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.

Proofs?

Edit: never mind, found it.

https://www.visiolending.com/blog/top-1 ... nters-move

New job- 29.8%

Life-changing events such as relationships, children, retirement- 29.3%

Looking for a change- 27.8%

Shorter commutes- 19.5%

Negative interactions with landlords/property managers- 19.5%

Rent Increase- 18%

Financial situation change- 14.6%

Unresolved maintenance issues- 11.7%

Recommendations of places to live from others- 4.9%

Threat of eviction- 1.5%

Your top examples, rent increase (18%) and negative interactions with landlords (19.5%) or unresolved repair issues (11.7%) do combine to form a fairly high percent (49.2%), or almost half. Although thats a much broader classification than your post, it's all the categories.

That still leaves renters twice as transitory as owners, even if landlords were perfect.

Ifreann wrote:So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

That is a Seizure of property you will have to compensate the owners of those. Landlords should receive the fair market value of their property, as should homeowners, and as should the banks who hold those mortgages.

You will find very quickly that sort of money would exceed the GDP of the entire country. Total value of all homes in the US ( so no apartments) is 31.8 Trillion.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/201 ... e7eff23ca8

The US's GDP is only about 20 trillion. Do you have another America or two to tax to get the money for that ?

As for what the Landlord does he provides the capital to create the apartment complex or home. You can't build a house $1,500 at a time the builders tend to want to get paid on time scales shorter than 30 years.

Greed and Death wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

That is a Seizure of property you will have to compensate the owners of those. Landlords should receive the fair market value of their property, as should homeowners, and as should the banks who hold those mortgages.

You will find very quickly that sort of money would exceed the GDP of the entire country. Total value of all homes in the US ( so no apartments) is 31.8 Trillion.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/201 ... e7eff23ca8

The US's GDP is only about 20 trillion. Do you have another America or two to tax to get the money for that ?

As for what the Landlord does he provides the capital to create the apartment complex or home. You can't build a house $1,500 at a time the builders tend to want to get paid on time scales shorter than 30 years.

You could go the Soviet route and just tell the landlords they are lucky they aren’t dead

San Lumen wrote:

Galloism wrote:Not really.

Average time for a homeowner is 13 years.

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economist ... heir-homes

That's the foreseeable future.

I’ve given up on the prospect of ever owning a home. It’s become nothing but a dream for many people now

Depends on where you want to live. Around here you can get a nice house for around 200k

The notion that the government can just cancel rent arbitrarily or seize housing from their rightful owners is just silly and absurd and will wreck the housing market or screw it up far more than will otherwise be the case and hurt the economy. I don't see the practicality in it, people who suggest it seem to not know how it all works. The banks usually own real estate before it goes to a landlord or individual (if it is paid off entirely after 10+ years or so), which in turn is rented out to tenants. The tenants don't have the right to own the property in question if they're not taking on all the risk with the mortgage. They're paying for what the lease entitles them to but that's it.

The only way to bring down housing prices is to create more housing which can't always be done given that space isn't infinite and zoning is done certain ways for a reason in different places.

What I'd suggest is for the government to build giant secured complexes where any excess people can temporarily stay in tent or cargo crate cities that is confined to the outskirts of town or somewhere more out of the way. Its cost prohibitive to give all the homeless nice shelter (because many will just wreck stuff they don't own). But its definitely possible to shelter a massive amount of people at scale via cheaper alternatives like military barracks, tents, shipping crates and the like.

It is far easier and less foolish to build camps like that, than it is to try to build actual houses for each and every person down on their finances or luck.

Saiwania wrote:The notion that the government can just cancel rent arbitrarily or seize housing from their rightful owners is just silly and absurd and will wreck the housing market or screw it up far more than will otherwise be the case and hurt the economy. I don't see the practicality in it, people who suggest it seem to not know how it all works. The banks usually own real estate before it goes to a landlord or individual (if it is paid off entirely after 10+ years or so), which in turn is rented out to tenants. The tenants don't have the right to own the property in question if they're not taking on all the risk with the mortgage. They're paying for what the lease entitles them to but that's it.

The only way to bring down housing prices is to create more housing which can't always be done given that space isn't infinite and zoning is done certain ways for a reason in different places.

What I'd suggest is for the government to build giant secured complexes where any excess people can temporarily stay in tent or cargo crate cities that is confined to the outskirts of town or somewhere more out of the way. Its cost prohibitive to give all the homeless nice shelter (because many will just wreck stuff they don't own). But its definitely possible to shelter a massive amount of people at scale via cheaper alternatives like military barracks, tents, shipping crates and the like.

It is far easier and less foolish to build camps like that, than it is to try to build actual houses for each and every person down on their finances or luck.

This doesn't actually hurt any productive forces in the economy.

Galloism wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Actually, do you know why we are "fairly transitory"? Landlords. Either constantly increasing the rent, or being slumlords, or being total Karens, or a combination thereof. Transitory living is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.

Proofs?

Edit: never mind, found it.

https://www.visiolending.com/blog/top-1 ... nters-move

New job- 29.8%

Life-changing events such as relationships, children, retirement- 29.3%

Looking for a change- 27.8%

Shorter commutes- 19.5%

Negative interactions with landlords/property managers- 19.5%

Rent Increase- 18%

Financial situation change- 14.6%

Unresolved maintenance issues- 11.7%

Recommendations of places to live from others- 4.9%

Threat of eviction- 1.5%

Your top examples, rent increase (18%) and negative interactions with landlords (19.5%) or unresolved repair issues (11.7%) do combine to form a fairly high percent (49.2%), or almost half. Although thats a much broader classification than your post, it's all the categories.

That still leaves renters twice as transitory as owners, even if landlords were perfect.

Those numbers add up to 147.3 percent!

Clearly people were allowed to give more than one reason in the survey.

Galloism wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Actually, do you know why we are "fairly transitory"? Landlords. Either constantly increasing the rent, or being slumlords, or being total Karens, or a combination thereof. Transitory living is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.

Proofs?

Edit: never mind, found it.

https://www.visiolending.com/blog/top-1 ... nters-move

New job- 29.8%

Life-changing events such as relationships, children, retirement- 29.3%

Looking for a change- 27.8%

Shorter commutes- 19.5%

Negative interactions with landlords/property managers- 19.5%

Rent Increase- 18%

Financial situation change- 14.6%

Unresolved maintenance issues- 11.7%

Recommendations of places to live from others- 4.9%

Threat of eviction- 1.5%

Your top examples, rent increase (18%) and negative interactions with landlords (19.5%) or unresolved repair issues (11.7%) do combine to form a fairly high percent (49.2%), or almost half. Although thats a much broader classification than your post, it's all the categories.

That still leaves renters twice as transitory as owners, even if landlords were perfect.

Rent increases are normal. There is this thing called inflation so Landlords have to increase rent to maintain the same buying power.

Thermodolia wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
That is a Seizure of property you will have to compensate the owners of those. Landlords should receive the fair market value of their property, as should homeowners, and as should the banks who hold those mortgages.

You will find very quickly that sort of money would exceed the GDP of the entire country. Total value of all homes in the US ( so no apartments) is 31.8 Trillion.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/201 ... e7eff23ca8

The US's GDP is only about 20 trillion. Do you have another America or two to tax to get the money for that ?

As for what the Landlord does he provides the capital to create the apartment complex or home. You can't build a house $1,500 at a time the builders tend to want to get paid on time scales shorter than 30 years.

You could go the Soviet route and just tell the landlords they are lucky they aren’t dead

Yeah we saw the results of that in the soviet union. The Russians had a starving time in the 1920s while everyone else in the world had a roaring time.
Or more modern we see it in Zimbabwe. They ignored the rule of law and refused protect property rights. No one invested domestically and the economy quickly collapsed.

In Venezuela you see the same thing. Once the government made clear any pretext would be used to seize property people pulled out their investments and refused to invest more. The economy collapsed despite having the world's largest know oil reserves.

Given the absurdly low average rent and cost of living in Deep South states like Mississippi and Alabama the numbers of evictions in those states are appalling.

Greed and Death wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So don't. Take rental properties away from landlords and give them to the people living in them. Take empty homes away from whoever the hell is leaving them empty and give them to people in need. Cancel all mortgages and let people keep the house they're living in. Now no one gets evicted. Now no one loses their home if they lose their income.

That is a Seizure of property you will have to compensate the owners of those...

Or, alternatively, don't.

---

Saiwania wrote:The notion that the government can just cancel rent arbitrarily or seize housing from their rightful owners is just silly and absurd and will wreck the housing market...

I am fully in favour of making it so that there isn't a housing market any more.

Ifreann wrote:

Saiwania wrote:The notion that the government can just cancel rent arbitrarily or seize housing from their rightful owners is just silly and absurd and will wreck the housing market...

I am fully in favour of making it so that there isn't a housing market any more.

Unfortunately such a radical change in the fundamental system of the modern economy is just not feasible

Aureumterra wrote:

Ifreann wrote:
I am fully in favour of making it so that there isn't a housing market any more.

Unfortunately such a radical change in the fundamental system of the modern economy is just not feasible

Of course it is. You only got the modern economic system because of radical changes to the economic systems that came before.

Punished UMN wrote:This doesn't actually hurt any productive forces in the economy.

I would consider hurting the equity of an individual as harming a productive force in the economy. So far as banks go, they're in the business of making loans. If the banks don't get interest and enough collateral, they're not going to be willing to grant loans to people if the math doesn't make sense. The entire point of a down payment is so a bank won't lose a lot of money on a piece of real estate in the event that they have to foreclose on the property but the house in question has gone down in value if the bank wants their money back.

If a house is worth $1 million and it is now only worth $850,000 -if the down payment was $250,000 -the bank has some cushion to protect themselves against further losses in the event that the house might go down in value more if that bank can't resell the house quickly enough or do something to try to get back the remaining $750,000 to cover the $1 million mortgage that went bad.

Most individuals/businesses need to take out a loan for something at some point, so its not exactly viable to hurt the banks just because they're unpopular. What else is going to lend money/credit to those who need it and are willing to repay what they borrowed along with any interest?

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I’ve given up on the prospect of ever owning a home. It’s become nothing but a dream for many people now

Depends on where you want to live. Around here you can get a nice house for around 200k

Near where I live you can get a bit below 150 if you're not picky about timeframe and willing to repaint, and significantly below 150 if you're not picky about level of nightly gunfire.

Ifreann wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
That is a Seizure of property you will have to compensate the owners of those...

Or, alternatively, don't.

---

Saiwania wrote:The notion that the government can just cancel rent arbitrarily or seize housing from their rightful owners is just silly and absurd and will wreck the housing market...

I am fully in favour of making it so that there isn't a housing market any more.

What do you want to replace it and why do you think it will do better?

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I’ve given up on the prospect of ever owning a home. It’s become nothing but a dream for many people now

Depends on where you want to live. Around here you can get a nice house for around 200k

I’m seriously considering leaving New York. Vermont and Minnesota are my top two

Galloism wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Actually, do you know why we are "fairly transitory"? Landlords. Either constantly increasing the rent, or being slumlords, or being total Karens, or a combination thereof. Transitory living is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.

Proofs?

Edit: never mind, found it.

https://www.visiolending.com/blog/top-1 ... nters-move

New job- 29.8%

Life-changing events such as relationships, children, retirement- 29.3%

Looking for a change- 27.8%

Shorter commutes- 19.5%

Negative interactions with landlords/property managers- 19.5%

Rent Increase- 18%

Financial situation change- 14.6%

Unresolved maintenance issues- 11.7%

Recommendations of places to live from others- 4.9%

Threat of eviction- 1.5%

Your top examples, rent increase (18%) and negative interactions with landlords (19.5%) or unresolved repair issues (11.7%) do combine to form a fairly high percent (49.2%), or almost half. Although thats a much broader classification than your post, it's all the categories.

That still leaves renters twice as transitory as owners, even if landlords were perfect.

Ever wonder why your tenants are moving out? AppFolio, a leading property management software for landlords with 50+ properties, polled tenants to find out the reasons they move. Here are the top ten reasons they found:

Want more insights on renters like their communications preferences and how they search for properties? Check out the AppFolio webinar “Did a Renter Just Pass You By? Reaching Today’s Customers.” Interested in partnering with Visio? Check out our Partner Programs.

Can we just talk about how vague "looking for a change" is as an option? And about how this only focuses on landlords with a large number of properties? And on how there's absolutely no methodology section? And any number of other factors?

Considering this is a business poll and not something a bit more objective, I have to wonder how accurate those numbers are.