all 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 119 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Reminds me of when the former German gov tried to enforce heat pumps for heater replacements to phase out gas heaters.

Someone wrote their experience with a homeowner meeting in a small city to discuss that topic and at some point a man complained that doesn’t know if he could afford to replace gas heaters with heat pumps in all 36 of his houses…

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 94 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It warms my heart to see all the people scared shitless by this guy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 83 points 1 year ago

    Obviously "unsellable properties" here means "property that won't keep appreciating at insane rates".

  • source
  • [–] 241 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Gotta read between the lines.

    They won't be sellable... AT A PROFIT. They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.

    You get to escape from this exploitation with the ill-gotten rent-profits you've already got and your heads still attached to your bodies... this is already the compromise. Take the win.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    They might not be sellable at "break even". A lot of people bought places to short-term rent on places like Airbnb. The prices might be extra inflated because of that revenue generation. Remove the ability to make a profit and the value crashes. Suddenly they cannot sell it for what they owe and it doesn't make enough to cover the mortgage.

    My guess is that a lot of these mom and pop landlords will lose or sell their properties and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap.. Never lose faith in the system's incomparable ability to fuck over the common people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    People who wanted to literally abuse the system (and the people in it) will get fucked up by a new system. So sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Did you read the whole post? Their point is it could make it even worse in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Isn't that the point of everything in the US?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lately it would seem so. And by lately I mean most of my lifetime, so possibly forever. Though I doubt that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'm far from being an authority in the matter, and I'm not even from the US, but it's a recurring trend since at least the 80s/90s after a brief attempt at making things a bit better (some of which, to be fair, did persist for some time before being crushed or just withering), so it kind of depends on your age I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    NYC already has heavy restrictions on short term rentals like airbnb, enforced since 2023. They need to be registered, there's a 2 guest limit, it must be a shared space (no full unit rentals), the hosts must be present for the full stay, and it's in an approved building.

    Local law 18.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Society is not responsible for insuring someone's investment works out well for them.

    Government should not be prevented from removing a thumb from the scale because a handful of people made a 30 year bet on it remaining there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fundamental issue is that people and corporations are buying himes for the sole purpose of profiting off them

    It'll suck for some people, but it's a necessary part of making housing affordable again. Housing needs to be a place for someone to live, not an investment that always gets more expensive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.

    So, condos? Not inherently bad, but I would expect that to make living in NYC even more impossible except for the already wealthy with enough capital to buy one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I was ALL IN on Mamdani until I read THIS! CANT we just think of the RICH LANDLORDS PLEASE! THOSE are the Only Ones who Matter! I'll GLADLY pay DOUBLE the Rent just to make Sure my Mom And Pop Landlord with 30 Buildings in NYC can stay Afloat and I Expect ALL Mamdani Supporters to do the Same! This is EYE OPENING!

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Giving everyone affordable housing would be socialism! Bailing out corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars every decade or so is not socialism, though. That would be straight up communism, but pssst

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That would be straight up communism

    Not really though. Communism means that the workers own the means of production. Bailing out billionaire-owned corporations is not that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If my landlord has to miss one trip in his giant RV I will just bawl my eyes out.

    Poor guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I know. It makes me so sad.

    Something I will say about my landlord though, I’ve never seen a harder worker. That dude doesn’t stop.

    Still though, he makes money for nothing across the board.

    I have paid him for a whole ass house at this point. You know how many times he’s had to work on anything at my place? 0.

    Just collect money and throw it in the bank for absolutely nothing.

    I’ve actually single handedly paid for half of his one apartment building at this point.

    It’s crazy to me that it’s like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 67 points 1 year ago

    And are those mom and pop landlords in the room with us now?

  • source
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If your promary concern when buying a hime is selling it, your housing market is fundamentally broken

    Landlords can still make a profit offering a service (rental profit) without needing the underlying asset to perpetually appreciate in value. Japan makes it work

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago

    "The feudal overlords are humans just like you and I."

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago

    If you're renting a property, it is not unsellable. I'm sure someone will be happy to buy it for $1.

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago

    While I get what the writer was trying to say:

    A) That was one of the worst terms they could have used.

    B) Even small operations are keeping rent high and renters counting pennies.

    So fuck em anyway.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago

    "Waaaaa I wanted all the potential profits and none of the risk!"

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It's funny how the system of owning extra properties to rent out as part of a person's retirement is so unreachable for current generations that they don't even really know about it. Being able to own things so you didn't have to work when you were old used to be how the system convinced people to buy into it.

    Now that this is now longer feasible for almost anyone, there's little reason for people to feel the system is worth upholding. That's what kept support for capitalism so strong after guilded age; a middle class supported by generous housing policies and strong unions. As such a reality becomes distant memory, people are more willing to reject capitalism and liberalism than every before.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The bourgeoisie are all dead, all we have left are capitalist oligarchs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's what I'm saying. The petty property owning class has been completely replaced by the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos. They pretend like they're helping the bourgeoisie, but home ownership is already dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They are the bourgeoisie. The term basically means you get your income from capital (investments) and not from your labor.

    There is the petite bourgeoisie. They're the shop owners and such who tend to still work at those shops alongside their other workers. Historically, they have not been good allies of the working class, though there are a few exceptions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Are you really an middle class city dweller when you don't interact with cities or society at large at all? I think people with $10B+ in wealth, or people with political ties to Trump would be considered ruling class, not middle class city-dwellers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    "Middle class" does not map to the bourgeoisie. The whole lower/middle/upper class distinction is so poorly defined that you can say literally anyone is middle class. Might be upper middle class or lower middle class, but you're never not middle class. Worker/bourgeoisie/nobility is more specific, and it's a trap to try to see it as directly mapping over.

    The term bourgeoisie was a distinction from the nobility who owned the land by right of birth. At the time, there was no other way to own land by purchasing it on the open market. The bourgeoisie emerged with early capitalism, and wanted to own land. The American and French revolutions were largely driven by the bourgeoisie with the help of the workers.

    In chapter I of the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie are the heroes. They did break the power of the nobility's stranglehold on land ownership. Right-libertarians sometimes use this fact to say capitalism is great, but this is the wrong way to look at it. Marx and Engles never argued things should stay there just because anyone can theoretically aquire enough wealth to own land.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What if he goes after the Mom & Pop Billionaires and Mom & Pop corporations next?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There are probably landlords who own only 2 properties, and who are living frugally in a smaller one while renting out a bigger one. I doubt there are many, but in a city of 25 million, there are probably a few. But, this idea that a property in NYC will be "unsellable" is a bit absurd.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • love the plural properties

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I'd like to hear how many % of NY rental properties are owned by landlords with a net worth below 1M$...?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Zillow has the average home price in NYC as ~800,000. So unless they also live in the rental probably near 0%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not to validate the moronic narrative in the OP, but a million dollars is really not that much. Not even enough to retire in many places. Not where I'd put the standard for "mom and pop." I mean hell, your average mom and pop anything is probably worth a lot more than one million dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    In some sense you are right, but also 1 million in net assets is not just within the global 1% but less than 0.5%...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    That's true if we evaluate wealth as an absolute number, but then you miss cost of living and purchasing power considerations that make this not as simple as it sounds. For example, the real value of a million dollars will be very different between Switzerland, the US, China, Turkey, Jordan and Nigeria. Hell, even inside the US a million dollars in a wealthy NYC neighborhood is not at all the same as a million dollars in rural Alabama. Where I'm from a decent-sized apartment in a nice location would cost somewhere along the lines of $100k, for example. You can kind of correct for this using purchasing power parity, but even then that's not the whole picture. Having a million dollars of net assets in NYC is definitely privileged, but not global 1% levels of privilege.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago*

    Won't anybody stand up for the leeches landlords??

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Mom and pop landlord? Is that the US version of a Baronet or Knight?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mom and Pop NYC landlords. I immediately want to balk at this statement but then I remembered two things. Firstly I remember "How to with Jon Wilson". He made an episode about buying the house from his landlord and that the only way to pay for it was to turn it into a rental property. His landlord was an old lady who wanted to move out.

    Secondly, I remember meeting a couple who sold a brownstone before the pandemic, moved to Montclair NJ, and then purchased a home and turned their second floor into an apartment.

    Do mom and pop landlords exist? Yes. Are they opportunistic? I don't think those single family homes should be allowed to be turned into apartments. I've seen some pretty heinous abuses of some people essentially turning a closet and a hallway into a "studio".

    Maybe "Mom and Pop" landlords shouldn't exist.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Think of the mom and pops that suddenly can't make a parasitic living off of leeching money from their tenants?

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    This is what fascist media does: they bullshit you to death.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    mom-and-pop parasites fear promising antiparasitic

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    here's an idea:

    sell it

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Housing is never 'unsellable', the price is just too high.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    It's really easy for individual homeowners to end up with unsellable properties. It happened at a massive scale after the late 2000s housing crash. All that has to happen is that the price declines to the point that your mortgage balance + transaction costs are now worth more than the home's value. If you're in that situation, unless you have the tens of thousands in cash needed to make up the difference, you're trapped in your home. You could mail the bank the keys and default on the mortgage, but that wrecks your credit and the bank will keep tacking on fees, charging you for maintenance, etc. Your choice is either to stay in the home or declare bankruptcy. Selling isn't a choice you actually have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Contrived outrage is insanely standard but it still works on the dotards.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Shouldn’t even be a business.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    I'm not tipping

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I hope Mamdani wins and people have to charge fair rents and feel like they are suffering.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Using language to deceive

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago