Unless you are by extension making those properties affordable for whomever is leasing or renting, then absolutely it is, yes.

You can work within a legal framework while arguing for changing that framework to no longer benefit yourself.

As long as you are honest; you are good.

It depends on how you are looking at it. Since you called it "Investment properties" I have to assume you plan to maximize profits on it so I would have to say yes it is. However if you are renting the property out for a minimum value and only charging enough to be able to cover costs and the mortgage and maybe a minor income on the side, I don't think it is. Obviously you need to cover expenses for the property or else someone else who won't do the same is going to obtain it.

BUT, if you are trying to maximize return and charging as much as you can, then yes it is super hypocritical to be defending the cause while contributing to the other side of the cause. I still think defending is better than just ignoring it but, yea it isn't helping your case if anyone ever finds out you do.

Yes. That is, if you're actively hurting the availability of affordable housing, that would be hypocrisy. Your economic interests are at odds with your stated ethical stance, which means your ethical stance is unstable.

Owning the property is not the problem: Rent-seeking is. Running it as a managed coöp would be the ethical path forward in that situation.

Depends on how greedy you are.

Was it hypocritical of RATM to spread anti-establishment messages via a major record label? No, of course not. Systemic change being somehow at odds with doing what you can within the existing system has always been a false dichotomy propagated by those who benefit from division.

It's not hypocritical if you are providing affordable housing for someone.

Despite the kneejerk hate towards landlords lately, which is largely justified due to the extreme levels of rent-seeking behavior evident in today's completely unaffordable rental market, affordable rental housing is actually a legitimate market and there needs to be availability to meet that demand. Renting on its own is not a crime. Some people even prefer it. It can provide significantly more flexibility and less responsibility, stress and hassle, at a lower monthly cost than home ownership IF (and ONLY IF) you have a good landlord, either because they choose to be or because the laws require them to be, which is not so much the case with most of the laws.

So for me those are the dividing lines. If you are not:

• A slumlord providing "affordable" rental housing by leaving your tenants in unsafe, unsanitary, and unmaintained properties.
• Demanding luxury-priced rents for an extremely modest property with no features that can be considered a luxury and no intention of maintaining anything to luxurious standards.

Then maybe it's not hypocritical. And I don't mean just taking the highest price you can find on rentfaster and posting your property for that price because "that's what the market price is" I mean actually thinking about whether that price you're asking is actually affordable for real human beings living in your area.

Basically, if you treat your tenants like actual human beings with the understanding they may be struggling to get by, trying to raise a family, working as much as they can even when work is not reliable, and dealing with all life throws at them, and you don't treat these things as immediately evictable offenses like a battleaxe over their head just waiting to drop, then yes, you absolutely can argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone -- because you are helping provide it.

If, after contributing to legitimate maintenance expenses and reserves, you are making a tiny profit, barely breaking even or even losing money renting, good. If you are treating it as a cash cow that funds your entire life, fuck you.

Are you renting them for unaffordable amounts? Maybe. But I think you can both live in the world that exists, and argue for a better one.

And I guess if your investment property is affordable housing then you are also walking the walk, right? So no I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. Likely so, but not necessarily so.

We've rented for much less than it costs to buy a house here, in fact all of the places we rented were like that. Old houses that were paid off, that we did not want to buy, just paid to live in them month to month. Sure we can wish for a better system but sometimes renting is affordable.

If your profit is modest no. Even less so if you live on the property like renting out a room or having a multiflat or coachhouse.

I believe in a baseline level of food, shelter, healthcare, and education being provided to all regardless of means. Plus things like parks, infrastructure, physical safety and security, etc.

But just because I believe that everyone should have enough to eat doesn't mean that I don't believe there is a qualitative difference between that baseline level of sustenance and all sorts of enjoyment I can get from food above that level. A person has a right to food, but that doesn't change the fact I might be able to farm for profit. Or go up the value/luxury chain and run an ice cream parlor, or produce expensive meals, or buy and sell expensive food ingredients. I want schools to provide universal free lunch but I also know that there will always be a market for other types of food, including by for-profit producers (from farmers/ranchers to grocers to butchers to restaurateurs).

The existence of public parks shouldn't threaten the existence of profitable private spaces like theme parks, wedding venues, other private spaces.

So where do real estate investors sit in all this? I'm all for developers turning a profit in creating new housing. And don't mind if profit incentives provide liquidity so that people can freely buy and sell homes based on their own needs.

I don't personally invest in real estate because I think it's a bad category of investment, but I don't think those who do are necessarily ideologically opposed to universal affordable housing. It's so far removed from the problems in affordable housing that you can't solve the problems simply by eliminating the profit.

For many people owning their own housing is the wrong decision. That means somebody else needs to own their housing and that person may as well be you (depending of course on your situation - it isn't for everyone)

Solid prompt question OP. I see 116 votes and 116 comments, that’s a legit conversation stater.

It isn't hypocritical, but I'd question why I would invest in something that I would want to lose value from a moral standpoint.

Hm I'd say not necessarily. That depends on your situation I guess. The question comes down to "would you give up your property for other people to live in?" If you own 1-2 small properties, that's not being a greedy landlord. And it would make it possible for you to give people housing they could afford (while still profitable for you, if you needed it to be).

If you charge insane rents, then you're not only a hypocrite but maybe also schizophrenic. That just sounds like a disconnect.

But it's very possible to "change the system from within", even if that's not my political opinion. If you can buy property, maybe you should. And then rent it to people for an affordable price.

I'm sometimes thinking people should get together and buy mansions to convert into shelters

Yeah. It's up to you to decide if you care about being a hypocrite though.

I feel like it kind of is. There are surely other investment possibilities. Why choose the one you're against?

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:

• Supply of housing influencing its cost
• Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
• Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people's access to housing
• Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)

The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn't realistic and isn't a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.

You are part of the society. You cannot escape it.

It's not because you own property (which, if you can, is a wise investment) that you can't see how messed up the system is at the expense of the working poor.

If you argue that others should not own investment property for whatever reason but you are a valid exception it's one thing.

If you say that "look at how much money I'm making, tax me harder daddy" it's another.

Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an "investment". There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.