this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
934 points (98.7% liked)

People Twitter

7843 readers
1508 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The issue here is, and this has happened before, investors will either sell the property, meaning those not in a position to buy are screwed, or they will do the bare minimum to keep the building functioning, as there is no incentive to improve the building.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That sounds like it's solving the problem, then.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you can afford to buy a property, sure.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

How would somebody buy it if nobody could afford it?

[–] ijedi1234@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The banks, of course. They'll buy anything.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

And what do they do with that investment?

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

Sell to Aquaman.

[–] ijedi1234@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, that's very simple. Warehousing! They need storage space for their gold, and their typical warehouses aren't big enough to hold it all.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 weeks ago

investors will either sell the property

Good. Investors rather than inhabitants owning homes is a huge part of why rent and property prices have skyrocketed.

they will do the bare minimum to keep the building functioning

They already do that in order to maximize profits.

there is no incentive to improve the building.

Ever heard of this new thing called laws and regulations? It's the only "incentive" that actually DOES work to correct the behavior of greedy slumlords.

Letting them keep increasing the already obscenely high rents just means more profits for them in return for no benefit for anyone else.

[–] pr0xy_prime@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

They already only do the bare minimum. You practically have to take your landlord to court to get any meaningful fixes in your apartment. All new developments are built like shit, developers cut corners anywhere they can. After the building is built the developer "vanishes" so there isn't anyone to sue when there is something seriously wrong with the building. They just open a new throw away LLC later and put up another shit building. You must not live in NYC

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Problem easily solved. Is a building not being utilized? Seize it and pay the owner fair market value, then have the city administrate it and charge just enough rent to cover expenses of maintenance and improvement and administration.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So why not skip the rent control and go straight to this?

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

To give the current owners the chance to do the right thing, and make a small but reasonable gain from their property.

And to make it more palatable to the general public. It's a lot easier to convince people to go along with it if you're seizing empty unused properties that are only empty and unused because the owner refuses to rent them if they're not making excessive profit.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fair market value is much, much lower 9n rent controlled property

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, a government deliberately lowering property values so they can buy them cheap isn't a great precedent.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

Won't somebody think of Blackrock?

[–] _AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not great, It's fantastic. Let the scumbags who own property they don't use lose money!

thale same strategy will be used to build more freeways through low income neighborhoods