• dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Hear me out: I don’t blame landlords for wanting to protect their investments. But, I do have a problem with them (and guys like James here) who do it at the expense of the downtrodden. Being a landlord should not have to be mutually exclusive with helping people.

    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      Landlords protecting their investments is always at the expense of the downtrodden. The role of landlord is one that exists solely at the expense of the downtrodden, and it is mutually exclusive with helping people.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’m not seeing it.

      For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while. The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.

      What kind of landlord can afford to have a rental property vacant for a significant period of time and not accept a lower rent? Ones who own lots of property and would prefer to lose income rather than reduce the average rent price in the area.

      In the industry, withholding housing from people because you want to make more money, when you can clearly afford to get no income from it, is called “a dick move”.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.

        That’s not the only way. It’s not even very likely. If they are looking for too much rent and can’t get it they will lower their ask rather than sit there month after month getting nothing. Too high rent is the most easily fixable situation conceivable.

        Other explanations include things like: it’s owned by someone who is elderly and due to their health or other problem they simply aren’t managing it actively or are even incapacitated and can’t make major decisions. Perhaps the owner died and the property is in the probate courts, which can take years.

        Also, the presence of squatters doesn’t necessarily indicate it has been vacant for a long time.

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Squatters could move in the day after the property becomes empty. Really it depends on when it is noticed the house is unoccupied.
        Sometimes houses can’t be sold for months because of legal BS (happened with my moms house).

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yes, there are always edge cases. Wouldn’t it be great if there were no corporate landlords and the problem was small enough to worry about those?

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        21 hours ago

        For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while.

        Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          You’re describing holdover tenants. Those are not the same as squatters. Holdover tenants have more rights in California.

          Edit: worded that wrong.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I don’t blame landlords for wanting to protect their investments.

      I’m a landlord (not by choice, but shit happens). I’ve never hired goons and never would. I do blame landlords for resorting to this kind of bullshit.

    • Crankenstein@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Their investments fundamentally come at the expense of the downtrodden by relegating necessities behind a paywall that they have private ownership over.

      Being a landlord is fundamentally against helping people. It is explicitly about utilizing the private ownership over housing in order to profit off of someone else’s inherent need of shelter.

      It is mutually exclusive and there is nothing that can be done to change that. The system is fundamentally oppressive.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’d definitely claim exception there in cases when someone travels often. Picture a guy who’s going to study at the nearby university for one year, but isn’t going to put down any roots in the city.

        But yes, I acknowledge that’s a comparatively uncommon case to most renters.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      OK I heard you out. But I absolutely do blame them. It is mutually exclusive, they’re parasites and aren’t helping anyone. The guy who helps fix up your home is the property manager, for which landlords occasionally hire themselves using your rent money.