this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
65 points (95.8% liked)

Ontario

3094 readers
13 users here now

A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.

Rules

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"But we also think that the responsibility for the safety of [low-income people] — and let's face it, it's low-income people who have this problem — that's a responsibility for society at large, for everyone, not just for the people who happen to own the buildings where these people make their homes."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (32 children)

running any business comes with risk. “help” should go to the tenant before the business. if a landlord cant afford a business then they should quit and get a normal job instead of being a piece of shit human.

landlords should not exist, to begin with. they are garbage people.

[–] timberwolf1021@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (17 children)

Landlords are not philanthropists. You are not going to find a big group of homeowners who want to rent at a loss out of the goodness of their own hearts.

I would love if the government took strong measures to encourage home ownership and discourage treating real estate as an investment. Really, I would. But that will take many years of hard work and economics PhDs to concoct a plan that works. So, until we find a government with the balls to do that for real, we have to understand that dealing with landlords in a realistic way is a necessary evil.

Because if you nuke rentals without first ensuring people can afford to buy, all you'll accomplish is to create a mass housing shortage worse than you've ever seen.

[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (7 children)

we have to understand that dealing with landlords in a realistic way is a necessary evil.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

[–] timberwolf1021@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What is this supposed to prove?

[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That we don't in fact have to deal with the parasites to have housing avaliable for working people

[–] timberwolf1021@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So do we just... fuck over all the renters living in landlord-owned units for the next 5-20 years while this cool new mass public housing is being built by all those extra construction workers we definitely don't have a shortage of?

[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We should let the housing market crash out, then nationalize it ;)

Similar to what was done after 2008 except federal government doesn't give money parasites and just does it by itself

[–] timberwolf1021@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Do you realize how many suicides and assorted anguish such a crash would cause?

I swear to gods, you people don't really know how to think things through.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ok. People are already dying. The market is being artificially held high to keep Boomer's investment portfolio in the black. People are going to keep dying until real estate turns over to the next generation and the market crashes. Let's just cut to the chase.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)