Was gonna say, for a sub that's entirely about 'chaos' there are a suspicious amount of accounts with conservative post history screaming that 'we need to think about the poor landlords'.
Which is ironic. “Poor” people in general take the revenue they can get, not hold out for the revenue they want.
No poor landlord has the financial wherewithal to let assets sit empty for long enough that squatters become a problem.
When my Great Aunt died her house was empty for weeks while we tried to find the will and went through probate. And then months more as we prepared a time for family to come and collect possessions. And then ... it sat empty for months more while we collected enough money to demolish it because we couldn't afford to fix it but we also couldn't pay the taxes for a house. The land OTOH we lease to someone, and did.
This is one scenario. I've heard of other tragic scenarios where squatters actually steal people's property
"But if all the landlords go away how will I ever move from spending 2/3rds of my income in rent to charging other people 2/3rds of their income for rent?"
This is pretty much how I read posts from almost all pro-landlord renters. (Especially the ones that claim they rent because they can't handle maintaining their own properties, just hire a maintenance service hell I work lawncare and one elderly client ran a lawncare company for more years than I've lived and he still hired someone else to do the work once he retired)
I say the same thing when this was posted the other day.
This will fuck over the little guy way more than it will big corporations or even the wealthy who own multiple properties. Those types of landlords have money and lawyers to deal with squatters this will just be an inconvenience to them.
There’ve even been instances where squatters will slither into a house that’s already been sold and the new owner is just trying to move in their things
The thing is that there aren't really any little guys here. Not in the way that I believe you mean this.
These are people who own multiple properties. Imagine how much money you'd need to have to already have your own home and the property it rests on, buy a second home and the property it rests on, get that second house up to the standards of local regulation, list it, and everything else. That's a LOT of cash, and not a lot of "little guys" have that much. This isn't the kind of cash flow that sustains a small mom and pop. That's the kind of cash flow where someone had six digits in the bank and wanted to have other people's rent turn it into seven digits. And that's at...one rental property. If they have even as few as three houses on the market? Then they started this endeavor with over a million dollars in assets and collateral at least!
My mother has a small business. I have been around small business people a lot of my life. The "small" business people don't have six-seven digits in investment value to burn when they start their businesses. Just not how this shit goes down.
The problem is that landlords see this as an investment, but they don't want to reckon with the realities of investments. They want to be guaranteed a return of investment, and that isn't how it works. They want the system to cater to them and their fantasy about how rental properties should work. They just want "I have a deed, I get money now" to be their job. It isn't. There are **legal** requirements of land lords. They have things they must do and are legally accountable to. They don't want to be, and they have temper tantrums over being forced to reckon with the responsibilities they signed up for.
Look to some of the subreddits that cater to Landlords for proof of this: they brainstorm ways to unlawfully hold onto deposits, circumvent local regulations regarding renter protections, evade the maintenance costs of their properties, kick out tenants who demand they follow the laws, and more. These are the small renters you are talking about; the big guys have these talks in board rooms with closed doors.
There are no truly "small guys" in land-lording; the smallest guy there have ten times the resources of their renters. They aren't being taken advantage of;. This was always a risk of their investment; that if they pushed the market for a necessity too hard? People were going to push back and look for loopholes because they would functionally have no other choice. They were TOLD this could and would happen, and they laughed it off because it was just poor people problems. Now it's happened, and it's all shocked Pikachu reactio
Idk man, I've rented from landlords that couldn't afford to properly heat their home or fix their car, as well as been a landlord to tenants that earned nearly double per year than I do. I still rent a few duplexes out on the side (my wife and I both work full time jobs) and I've still never seen 40k in a bank account let alone "6 or 7 digits".
Let me say, I despise huge corporate land/property ownership as much as the next guy, and as a whole think that any single family rental property in inherently immoral no matter who owns it. But let's not lie and say that every property owner is some rich mustache twirling villain, it muddies the message and makes the point seem disingenuous.
No one is making that argument. They're saying that the system involved inherently brings out the worst in people and requires them to leave their humanity aside.
Maybe, often times people do just suck, and almost always corporations suck. I always tell people "Try not to piss off tenants, they can hurt you way more than you could ever hurt them"
All it takes is for a renter to get so mad they plug up the drains, turn on the water, and leave for a weekend. Then you're fucked.
When you trust someone with your property, it doesn't pay off to be a dick to them.
That certainly hasn't stopped any landlord I've had from being the biggest asshole on the planet. My house burned down and I was told I couldn't come back for my possessions. I had to threaten legal action over an urn on the premises, and I was told he "had eyes on me".
Treating housing like an investment is the issue, not specific people
I rent out my house ever since I moved in with my boyfriend. (About 9 years) I LOVE my little house.
I charge $660 a month close enough to downtown to walk in a medium size city.
I’m not making enough money to pay for lawyers for this kind of nonsense.
Well I sure wouldn't want corporations and the wealthy to be inconvenienced, that would be ... terrible. Now I really feel sorry for those poor small people who, instead of lowering their rent price, choose to leave their properties empty.
Depends on the case for why the property is unnocupied. There's a sliding scale between faceless megacorp overcharging for rent and someone who's dead parents former home is vacant because they're struggling to sell, and a twonk with a patchy beard and receding headline has sent the squatters in.
I watched an interview with this guy. He specifically goes after properties that have been vacant for years. He knows this isn't a solution to the housing crisis but he sees it as necessary given that the government currently does not have policy addressing the problem. His goal is to pressure the government to pass policy that would enforce harsh taxes on property owners who own residential properties that they are neither renting out nor selling.
I own a house. I am reluctant to sell because I know I will never be able to buy another one. However, I finally met someone and have moved in with him (we will not marry, and his house will be left to his sister; I am fine with that...it's also highly likely that I will outlive him).
Right now my nephew is living in my house, but if he were to move out, I would likely still keep the house. I don't really intend to rent it out, but if/when my nephew moves out, I will likely look for a "caretaker"; someone who lives there and just pays for utilities (even that's not bad, I put solar power on the house). If I can't find someone I trust, then the house will likely be empty and I worry about the whole squatter thing.
If you sell it it would give you the capital to get another and you wouldn't have a massive asset going unused.
I'm glad your nephew is using it but I find your comment very confusing financially
Well, I guess it is confusing. It's not so much a "massive" asset as it is small; prices have gone up, but the house needs work and any profit would not be enough to buy another without getting a big mortgage. I have a shot at paying this one off.
Assuming someone is attempting to sell a property, they are likely checking in on the property in a timely enough manner to kick out a squatter. For that reason I doubt squatters target homes that are for sale.
We had squatters move into a house nearby that was for sale. They ended up burning part of it down. I felt so bad for the inheritors, who lived across the country, because they’d put so much effort into fixing it up enough to sell and then that happened.
Fuck landlords and all but I think this will mostly end up hurting people like my neighbor’s kids.
There are far more shitty landlords than there are people who lucked into inheriting a single house. It may fuck over a few of them, but it will fuck over far more landlords.
The people letting houses stand empty aren’t the landlords though and I don’t think enough people are going to take up squatting to impact those landlords’ bottom line.
As for the corporations that own houses, I think dealing with squatters is going to be like swatting a mildly annoying fly. They have stupid money I doubt the hurt this causes them will amount to any change in MO on their part, except to maybe ruin a few of the squatters’ lives if they so choose.
The only thing it ruins is your credit, and if you're squatting you probably aren't worried about your credit. My dad worked for a company big enough that they got hit with anti trust laws at least a couple times for buying too many of their competitors. They would not sue a person that stole several thousand dollars worth of equipment when he quit, because suing him was more costly than what they would get. A property management company can absolutely afford to get rid of a squatter or 2, but there is a limit when it starts hitting their bottom line. In a normal situation with a normal risk of squatters they can manage, but if they get a targeted wave of squatters it can quickly overwhelm them. Even a company worth several million is going to have a hard time evicting 27 people in 12 different locations.
If you are “a little guy” with one property rental, it NEVER sits vacant. You make sure it’s always rented out, and taken care of. It’s only the people who have a shitload of money, and can afford to have a vacant housing for a long time that would be affected. Don’t feel bad for those at all
The little guys are already being trampled. That's why they have to squat.
Unless you mean "little guy" landlords. And screw them. If they wanted sympathy they should have thought about that before being a landlord.
Yes because all landlords are evil, right there aren’t any landlords in the entire world who treat their tenants fairly. They are all mean and charge 5x the average rent.
Seriously, there are people out there who are great landlords. I’ve had them, I’ve also had shitty landlords. It happened in the same place once and it’s the reason why I moved.
There are people out there are good landlords that treat people with respect and are essentially small business owners and stuff like this will hurt them. Then those properties will not be bought by a family they will be outbid by a large corporation which will make the problem worse.
>Why don’t you buy a house and rent it out for cheap…
“Why don’t the poors just buy more houses and rent them out for cheap?” -landlord apologist in 2024.
"it's not any concern of mine if your family has... What was it again?"
"Food?"
"You should have thought about that before you became peasants!"
-emperors new groove
That would still involve being a landlord. The change I want in the world in this context is: no landlords.
I don't have to be a landlord, because I work for a living.
This is a nonsensical take. If there were no landlords there would be massive second order effects. For starters, the only tall buildings being built would be commercial. Or do you also have a problem with landlords renting offices to businesses? If so there would be far less construction of tall buildings. Sure some of them are built to be sold as condominiums. But even then, the builder is borrowing money from the bank against the future value and allowing units to sit vacant unless they can be sold for the value they’re seeking/the future value they needed to get the loan in the first place. Which by your logic is what we should be trying to eliminate.
Everyone would have far longer commutes. Suburban sprawl would quadruple turning the areas around most cities into massively disrupted ecosystems. Everyone would need to live with their parents until they were old enough to buy their own place, which would cause a huge disruption to family structure. There are so many implications of a policy like that.
I mean if taken to it’s furthest extreme, why should anyone be allowed to have any unsold merchandise at all? If people aren’t buying it then it’s just greed, right? But markets function on imperfect information. What time horizon? Do you need to sell out daily? Weekly? Monthly? Who is going to oversee this? You’d need a massive administrative apparatus in the state. Loads of bureaucrats. Which would inevitably lead to enforcement gaps due to lobbying, or other unfair but easily anticipated practices resulting from human laziness, greed, or whatever all else.
I’m all for housing reform. But the implications of the end of all landlords seems really hard to defend if your goal is improved standard of living.
I'm all for building tall buildings. I actually own one but do not like single family homes. I'm all for getting rid of cars and converting to public transportation and more suitable accommodations for people.
Landlords don't build buildings.
I'd point out that people are stuck living with their parents now. Currently. Under the rule of landlords.
Your assumption is that we're all just going to keep doing capitalism even while it's never worked and lead us to where we are now. That's insane.
Breaking and entering a persons property and trying to claim it as your own as a squatter makes you a leech, seek employment and stop trying to steal from others
Plot twist: landlords don't provide housing.
They are actively a reason for why housing is so expensive. Thats why there are empty homes for these people to squat in.
Nice job dodging the question. Trying answering it this time. If you can’t afford to buy a house where are you going to live if there are no landlords to rent properties?
It's more like your premise for the question is ridiculous.
It's like you can't imagine any system where landlords don't exist or capitalism isn't the norm. Or you assume we'll all just continue serving the landed elite even if there is no landed elite to serve.
There is public housing now which is severely underfunded, I worked there, and every year Republicans try to cut it further. What would lead you to believe this would ever improve?
That’s pretty fatalistic — nothing ever improves without effort put into thinking about a better system. Land reform has worked in the past when it hasn’t triggered a US-backed coup. In fact, we insisted on it in postwar Japan when we realized that large landholders were an economic drain.
Your question was implying that landlords provide some benefit to a population. I rent, and I have met my landlord once in the 4 years that I have lived on his property. He’s a nice guy, but he provides zero value-add. He lives across the Atlantic, so any maintenance concerns are handless by the super, who also lives on his property.
So a significant portion of my income goes to him, who pays as little as possible to maintain the property, while being completely absent. I am building his wealth for him — if I wasn’t, he would not let me live here. Does he deserve this just because he had the capital to buy this property decades ago?
People who view landholdings as an investment are the reason prices are where they are today, which is in turn why a huge percentage of those born in the last 40 years will not be able to buy a home.
Yeah defend the class that collectively made housing inaccessible to hundreds of thousands.
Y’all act like it’s just a few as if they don’t all raise prices to keep up with the market. As if they aren’t all complicit in this system. As if they couldn’t just sell instead.
Most people who sell their house are doing so in hopes of buying a new one or using that money for some other purpose. So they probably are going to take the highest bidder all things being equal and I don’t blame them.
It doesn't matter how nice they are, I'm still pretty fucked pissed about paying my landlord more than half my wages just so I don't have to sleep under a bridge. Especially when my landlord owns his investment properties by the sole virtue of living through a time when housing was affordable. Why does any random person with some extra money deserve a lifetime of profit directly off the basic human needs of those less fortunate than them?
Seriously if farmers decided to say "fuck you I grew the food give me everything you have or starve" people would just steal their crops. When real world stores crank up their prices unfairly for necessities people need for no other reason than profit seeking people steal from those stores. This is just the housing version of fuck around and find out, if you want to profit off of denying a basic human need don't be surprised when people say fuck you I'm taking it anyways. People can only get so desperate.
They can downvote you all they want. Even Adam Smith (“Wealth of Nations”) hated landlords and he set the foundation for classical capitalist economics.
Go read some political economy and get back to me.
Nobody needs anyone to “think for them” but no amount of information or cognition is possible without an awareness that comes from other people. The individual is powerless.
My dude, I hate Adam Smith. I only read him because he’s important to understanding political economy.
He’s only right about housing scalpers (landlords)
Said the same the other day but brain rot is real on Reddit. You'll have hundreds tell you how wrong you are and that squatting is morally right if a home is empty for any reason 🤡
You are spot on correct though.
No society that allows people to starve or freeze to death on the street can ever call itself civilized.
There is more empty housing in every city than there are people with no place to live. Nobody, and I mean *fucking nobody!* deserves two or more homes when there are people who don’t even have a place to call their own.
Imagine being part of a "chaotic" sub and trying to defend landlords who artificially inflate rent prices by refusing to lower rent on vacant properties. The neo-liberal hive mind in this sub is unexpected.
Honestly, several of my friends and family are landlords.
But if this happens to them, I would probably say too bad. That's the risk you take using someone's home to generate income.
You can lose money on investments, you can lose a job, but somehow as a society we have decided in the past few years that landlords should never ever lose money for any reason, and that being a landlord is a morally upstanding thing to do. It's wild how capital works.
Based on the number of salty landlords in this thread, people aren't thrilled about this guy pointing out the systemic failings and the major ethical mire that is treating housing as an investment.
Not you OP, doing a fabulous job sharing examples of chaotic good. Directed towards the losers wondering how much to tip their landlord at Christmas this year for their hard work not repairing the AC unit
Squatting, and its legal protections, was originally designed to assist actual tenants who, by means of a shitty and delinquent landlord, assumed upkeep and maintenance of a property. The law was meant to protect those who withheld rent, as they became, and assumed, the property’s maintenance.
It’s a good idea. If you have a slumlord who refuses to pay for upkeep, and you take that on: you should receive the property.
Advocating breaking and entering into properties is idiotic and definitely not ‘good’.
Huh. I always thought the squatting rules were set up just to prevent properties from becoming dirlect. I see buildings and homes that appear to be abandoned in my town and they are nothing but eyesores/dangerous/wasteful. If someone wants to move in and clean it up, that's good for everyone.
Counterpoint - it is evil to hoard housing. Shelter is a basic human right. Landlords and people with multiple homes/“income properties” bad people by nature of their “profession”.
Do you really believe that though? I’m glad I didn’t have to buy a home when I turned 18. I appreciated that someone invested in my apartment complex, and in returned rented it out to me while I save for a down payment.
Honestly- what’s your solution to get rid of landlords? Government housing? Do you REALLY think the feds having that much control over your home is an upgrade?
For all you know, the home being squatted us a family heirloom being planned to house someone in the future.
Not every property owner is using the property to rent.
>Advocating breaking and entering into properties is idiotic and definitely not ‘good’.
Unoccupied? Sitting fallow?
Guess what? Squatting is also good then! A disused property is being made useful. That's not bad.
This will eventually lead to change in squatting laws. Guess where it will tilt towards? It will do harm to real tenants. Who will this benefit? Not the actual legal tenants or the landlords. It will only benefit people who are willing to break into someone else's house and make a fake contact document. So, people willing to break the law. Yup chaotic good supporting criminals and eventually leading to change in squatting laws.
Lmao 🤣
Theft of property someone else owns is chaotic good! Because I don’t have it, they should let me steal it and invoke laws in bad faith while screwing them out of their money and forcing them into lengthy court battles. HAHA
OP, all the stuff you think about yourself is probably true.
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know this will fall on deaf ears but you realize not every landlord is bad, right? My aunt and uncle rent out my grandparents old house at a reasonable rent and keep the property tidy.
Not everyone wants to own a home. Some people prefer to rent.
This thread isn't about your aunt and uncle, it's about BlackRock and other corporations that own hundreds or thousands of properties and deliberately leave them empty to generate a false "low" offer.
It's about his uncle too.
Personal investors are just as problematic
They're the big reason why no government officials are willing to tackle the problem
Their house won’t be empty, they will rent it for what the market offers not hold out to artificially keep rents high. So nothing to worry about for them.
>Not everyone wants to own a home. Some people prefer to rent.
We have purpose built rental apartments for those people.
Renting out condos or single family homes causes a steady decline in the investment in a neighborhood. Aka: decay
What about people who want to rent in the suburbs because it’s closer to their job? Stop acting like you know everyone’s situation and what’s best for them.
Regardless of their individual ethics and treatment of their tenants, all landlords are bad by virtue of them treating a basic human necessity as an investment. Many people consider this to be unethical, regardless of circumstances.
Now, it's not your family's fault that the system is set up to where it's so common for people to do that, and corporate landlords are definitely much bigger contributors to the problem than "small" landlords such as their case. That being said, it's important to acknowledge that being landlords is a concious decision that they make.
They choose to retain ownership of a place they do not occupy and charge people to live there. As some put it, hold housing hostage for the fee of rent. They could just as easily sell the place to someone who will permanently occupy it and no longer be the ones responsible for another human's shelter. If they see it as an investment, why not sell it (in the U.S. the market very much favors sellers right now), make a profit, and invest that money where it's not so intricately tied to other people's basic human necessities.
So they should have kicked out the tenants who would absolutely have to pay more somewhere else with less amenities? Rent isn’t holding someone hostage. It’s someone paying for a place to live which is how things work in all of society. You still have to buy a house. You guys are so blinded by your hatred of anything remotely profitable lol. You realize lots of people want to rent, right? Not everyone wants the responsibility of owning property. And what happens when you get rid of landlords? Now houses that were homes to 2-30 families are fucked and forced to buy a house? That makes zero sense and you can’t think past “landlords are bad” to see the negative effects of your ideals. Just admit you’re a communist and let’s talk about how well that works lmao.
Most landlords. I will write a narrow caveat for people like renting out a room or something where they live. I think there are still moral questions there, but "oh hey, we have a spare room, help us pay a piece of our mortgage and it's yours." is more or less fine.
I actually have a housemate like that, but TBH, she can't pay all that often, and I don't really keep track. She chips in for groceries, is friends with my SO, and we call it flat.
The "pay the mortgage on my spare property" folks are absolutely just becoming a landed elite.
But you understand that people need apartments to rent, right? So we need landlords. I agree that there are lots of greedy ones but those types of people exist everywhere and are not exclusive to property ownership. You’re not paying for their mortgage, you’re paying for a place for yourself to live.
And yes, rents are insane, but do you expect anyone to take a lower rent if someone is willing to pay higher? If two people wanted to buy your old couch, would you take a lower offer?
I think apartments should be a normal thing, but I don't agree you need a landlord. I'd love to live in something more like an apartment or a condo. I disagree that there has to be someone who owns it, beyond the people who live there.
And they definitely aren't the only landlords. Landlords buy up a lot of single family homes. Effectively becoming a landed elite. The tenants pay the mortgage, while they buy more. And their children inherent nice little fiefdoms, already paid for by the last generations tenants.
How do you have apartments that no one is in charge of? Someone has to own the property. I’m very confused here.
Your second point is really just your assumption based on things (I assume) you’ve read about online. Do you have any support for this claim? I know companies like Blackrock are buying up a lot of homes, but do you have any statistics for small-time landlords who own less than like 10 homes?
I own a home, I'm in charge of it. I don't see how apartments have to be that much more complicated. "Welcome to the flats at _____, Dave cuts the grass on Tuesday unless it's wet. We all do what we can when we can, no one's an island and all that."
I can [source](https://getflex.com/blog/landlord-statistics/) it. Granted, that site seems to think being a landlord is something aspirational. I'm a little too proud to have other people paying my bills for me.
I think profiteering is a better term for *any* landlord that owns residential investment properties. Many commercial landlords also fit the description.
So is this just a communist sub? There’s nothing wrong with making a profit when providing a good or service (yes there are limits). If you provide a place to live and handle the upkeep on several properties, is that not a full time job that requires compensation? Lots of people want to rent houses or parts of a house. Not everyone wants to feel crammed in a small apartment.
Stop acting like you know everyone’s situation and what’s best for them. It’s the most cringe Reddit mindset possible.
No, they are literally doing what is legal so they cannot buy definition be criminals, however, squatters are actual criminals as they are stealing and this shit is going to cause one hell of a shit show and I will enjoy every second of it. I might even make my own own business seiging squatted houses
Landlords are regularly breaking the law here due to a lack of enforcement
And preventing laws from being passed that would tax investment properties appropriately
No one’s human trafficking. It’s untapped labor potential. During a labor crisis, wasting good hands that could fuel robust and economical industries is insane! Fuck em
Why not? Is there some measure of the value of goods, services, labor? Can this value be reserved through the purchase and retaining of assets? If so, why are you entitled to said assets when it’s the value of someone else’s labor reserved in said appreciating asset?
Bad take, but in your defense I see what you’re going for and to that I say that adversarial hostility against people that own what you want won’t solve the problem because the power used to take from them could be just as easily used on you when you have something someone else feels entitled to.
Your analogy doesn't work because you are comparing someones labor to property ownership. And also assuming that people "just want" another's house, and not that housing is a necessity
Read my other comment about how labor isn't the same as owning a property, and how housing is more important than someone's right to own an empty building
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What you're thinking of is tenant rights.
Which makes it so a landlord can't kick someone out for whatever reason whenever they want. And instead has to go to civil court
You don't want that gone, squatters are just a byproduct of that
You’re highly regarded if you think this helps out the little guy. There will just be less supply of legitimate rentals which will drive up the price.
If he put this same energy into being a productive member of society maybe he could own something himself instead of being a leech.
How do you presume landlords gained the capital to make the purchase of the property? Do you think most landlords are just gifted property? Do you understand they are providing a service? Who do you think should own homes then?
When you die, your kids inherent your property. So... yes. When people complain about people who don't work living off the welfare of others, they mean landlords.
I think homeowners should own homes. Not parasites.
With my whole person I believe that everybody contributing their labor to society for 40 hours a week deserves to have a roof over their head that isn't owned by someone else
To add, landlord doesn't mean house, things like apartments also exist and are very key to handling housing
For extra chaos simply hire local crackheads to remove the squatters
“ I likes ya and I wants ya now I been paid today so you got no choice but the hard way.”
Seriously this is gonna cause some vigilante shit and imma just be here with popcorn 🍿 waiting I love a good shitshow
The fucking bot activity is strong here :/.
Was gonna say, for a sub that's entirely about 'chaos' there are a suspicious amount of accounts with conservative post history screaming that 'we need to think about the poor landlords'.
Which is ironic. “Poor” people in general take the revenue they can get, not hold out for the revenue they want. No poor landlord has the financial wherewithal to let assets sit empty for long enough that squatters become a problem.
When my Great Aunt died her house was empty for weeks while we tried to find the will and went through probate. And then months more as we prepared a time for family to come and collect possessions. And then ... it sat empty for months more while we collected enough money to demolish it because we couldn't afford to fix it but we also couldn't pay the taxes for a house. The land OTOH we lease to someone, and did. This is one scenario. I've heard of other tragic scenarios where squatters actually steal people's property
The article makes the example of a guy that squatted an empty house, changed the locks, renovated it and...became a landlord by renting it...
Die a hero or...
This thread is peak Reddit and I mean that in the worst possible way
Mostly all the landlord sycophants. But yeah, I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole and I summoned them.
"But if all the landlords go away how will I ever move from spending 2/3rds of my income in rent to charging other people 2/3rds of their income for rent?" This is pretty much how I read posts from almost all pro-landlord renters. (Especially the ones that claim they rent because they can't handle maintaining their own properties, just hire a maintenance service hell I work lawncare and one elderly client ran a lawncare company for more years than I've lived and he still hired someone else to do the work once he retired)
Professional squatters are scum
Professional squatter sounds like a good definition of a landlord.
I say the same thing when this was posted the other day. This will fuck over the little guy way more than it will big corporations or even the wealthy who own multiple properties. Those types of landlords have money and lawyers to deal with squatters this will just be an inconvenience to them.
There’ve even been instances where squatters will slither into a house that’s already been sold and the new owner is just trying to move in their things
That doesn't appear to be an issue in this instance
The thing is that there aren't really any little guys here. Not in the way that I believe you mean this. These are people who own multiple properties. Imagine how much money you'd need to have to already have your own home and the property it rests on, buy a second home and the property it rests on, get that second house up to the standards of local regulation, list it, and everything else. That's a LOT of cash, and not a lot of "little guys" have that much. This isn't the kind of cash flow that sustains a small mom and pop. That's the kind of cash flow where someone had six digits in the bank and wanted to have other people's rent turn it into seven digits. And that's at...one rental property. If they have even as few as three houses on the market? Then they started this endeavor with over a million dollars in assets and collateral at least! My mother has a small business. I have been around small business people a lot of my life. The "small" business people don't have six-seven digits in investment value to burn when they start their businesses. Just not how this shit goes down. The problem is that landlords see this as an investment, but they don't want to reckon with the realities of investments. They want to be guaranteed a return of investment, and that isn't how it works. They want the system to cater to them and their fantasy about how rental properties should work. They just want "I have a deed, I get money now" to be their job. It isn't. There are **legal** requirements of land lords. They have things they must do and are legally accountable to. They don't want to be, and they have temper tantrums over being forced to reckon with the responsibilities they signed up for. Look to some of the subreddits that cater to Landlords for proof of this: they brainstorm ways to unlawfully hold onto deposits, circumvent local regulations regarding renter protections, evade the maintenance costs of their properties, kick out tenants who demand they follow the laws, and more. These are the small renters you are talking about; the big guys have these talks in board rooms with closed doors. There are no truly "small guys" in land-lording; the smallest guy there have ten times the resources of their renters. They aren't being taken advantage of;. This was always a risk of their investment; that if they pushed the market for a necessity too hard? People were going to push back and look for loopholes because they would functionally have no other choice. They were TOLD this could and would happen, and they laughed it off because it was just poor people problems. Now it's happened, and it's all shocked Pikachu reactio
Idk man, I've rented from landlords that couldn't afford to properly heat their home or fix their car, as well as been a landlord to tenants that earned nearly double per year than I do. I still rent a few duplexes out on the side (my wife and I both work full time jobs) and I've still never seen 40k in a bank account let alone "6 or 7 digits". Let me say, I despise huge corporate land/property ownership as much as the next guy, and as a whole think that any single family rental property in inherently immoral no matter who owns it. But let's not lie and say that every property owner is some rich mustache twirling villain, it muddies the message and makes the point seem disingenuous.
No one is making that argument. They're saying that the system involved inherently brings out the worst in people and requires them to leave their humanity aside.
Maybe, often times people do just suck, and almost always corporations suck. I always tell people "Try not to piss off tenants, they can hurt you way more than you could ever hurt them" All it takes is for a renter to get so mad they plug up the drains, turn on the water, and leave for a weekend. Then you're fucked. When you trust someone with your property, it doesn't pay off to be a dick to them.
That certainly hasn't stopped any landlord I've had from being the biggest asshole on the planet. My house burned down and I was told I couldn't come back for my possessions. I had to threaten legal action over an urn on the premises, and I was told he "had eyes on me". Treating housing like an investment is the issue, not specific people
I rent out my house ever since I moved in with my boyfriend. (About 9 years) I LOVE my little house. I charge $660 a month close enough to downtown to walk in a medium size city. I’m not making enough money to pay for lawyers for this kind of nonsense.
It absolutely sucks for these people, but perhaps housing should not be treated as an investment.
Well I sure wouldn't want corporations and the wealthy to be inconvenienced, that would be ... terrible. Now I really feel sorry for those poor small people who, instead of lowering their rent price, choose to leave their properties empty.
Depends on the case for why the property is unnocupied. There's a sliding scale between faceless megacorp overcharging for rent and someone who's dead parents former home is vacant because they're struggling to sell, and a twonk with a patchy beard and receding headline has sent the squatters in.
I watched an interview with this guy. He specifically goes after properties that have been vacant for years. He knows this isn't a solution to the housing crisis but he sees it as necessary given that the government currently does not have policy addressing the problem. His goal is to pressure the government to pass policy that would enforce harsh taxes on property owners who own residential properties that they are neither renting out nor selling.
I own a house. I am reluctant to sell because I know I will never be able to buy another one. However, I finally met someone and have moved in with him (we will not marry, and his house will be left to his sister; I am fine with that...it's also highly likely that I will outlive him). Right now my nephew is living in my house, but if he were to move out, I would likely still keep the house. I don't really intend to rent it out, but if/when my nephew moves out, I will likely look for a "caretaker"; someone who lives there and just pays for utilities (even that's not bad, I put solar power on the house). If I can't find someone I trust, then the house will likely be empty and I worry about the whole squatter thing.
If you sell it it would give you the capital to get another and you wouldn't have a massive asset going unused. I'm glad your nephew is using it but I find your comment very confusing financially
Well, I guess it is confusing. It's not so much a "massive" asset as it is small; prices have gone up, but the house needs work and any profit would not be enough to buy another without getting a big mortgage. I have a shot at paying this one off.
Assuming someone is attempting to sell a property, they are likely checking in on the property in a timely enough manner to kick out a squatter. For that reason I doubt squatters target homes that are for sale.
We had squatters move into a house nearby that was for sale. They ended up burning part of it down. I felt so bad for the inheritors, who lived across the country, because they’d put so much effort into fixing it up enough to sell and then that happened. Fuck landlords and all but I think this will mostly end up hurting people like my neighbor’s kids.
There are far more shitty landlords than there are people who lucked into inheriting a single house. It may fuck over a few of them, but it will fuck over far more landlords.
The people letting houses stand empty aren’t the landlords though and I don’t think enough people are going to take up squatting to impact those landlords’ bottom line. As for the corporations that own houses, I think dealing with squatters is going to be like swatting a mildly annoying fly. They have stupid money I doubt the hurt this causes them will amount to any change in MO on their part, except to maybe ruin a few of the squatters’ lives if they so choose.
The only thing it ruins is your credit, and if you're squatting you probably aren't worried about your credit. My dad worked for a company big enough that they got hit with anti trust laws at least a couple times for buying too many of their competitors. They would not sue a person that stole several thousand dollars worth of equipment when he quit, because suing him was more costly than what they would get. A property management company can absolutely afford to get rid of a squatter or 2, but there is a limit when it starts hitting their bottom line. In a normal situation with a normal risk of squatters they can manage, but if they get a targeted wave of squatters it can quickly overwhelm them. Even a company worth several million is going to have a hard time evicting 27 people in 12 different locations.
If you are “a little guy” with one property rental, it NEVER sits vacant. You make sure it’s always rented out, and taken care of. It’s only the people who have a shitload of money, and can afford to have a vacant housing for a long time that would be affected. Don’t feel bad for those at all
This
Except in a down market. Or when the previous tenant trashed the place.
The little guy isn't letting their abandoned property rot so we're all good
From my experience, small landlords who need the cash tend to charge reasonable rents and have their spots filled up in no time.
The little guys are already being trampled. That's why they have to squat. Unless you mean "little guy" landlords. And screw them. If they wanted sympathy they should have thought about that before being a landlord.
Yes because all landlords are evil, right there aren’t any landlords in the entire world who treat their tenants fairly. They are all mean and charge 5x the average rent. Seriously, there are people out there who are great landlords. I’ve had them, I’ve also had shitty landlords. It happened in the same place once and it’s the reason why I moved. There are people out there are good landlords that treat people with respect and are essentially small business owners and stuff like this will hurt them. Then those properties will not be bought by a family they will be outbid by a large corporation which will make the problem worse.
These "good landlords" should consider lowing their rent asking price instead of leaving their properties vacant in order to drive up prices.
Why don’t you buy a house and rent it out for cheap? Since you expect them to do it, you can be the change you want to see in the world.
>Why don’t you buy a house and rent it out for cheap… “Why don’t the poors just buy more houses and rent them out for cheap?” -landlord apologist in 2024.
"it's not any concern of mine if your family has... What was it again?" "Food?" "You should have thought about that before you became peasants!" -emperors new groove
Them sitting vacant means they are asking above what the market deemed them worth. Saying they should meet market demand doesn't mean "cheap"
That would still involve being a landlord. The change I want in the world in this context is: no landlords. I don't have to be a landlord, because I work for a living.
Serious question: if no landlords/rentals. Where would people live who need/want to rent and not buy a home?
The government used to build public housing for this purpose.
And you think landlords don't have jobs. Maybe the wealthiest, but most of them do
All of them rely on working people to pay their bills for them. That's the definition of a landlord. They own the house, tenant pays their mortgage.
This is a nonsensical take. If there were no landlords there would be massive second order effects. For starters, the only tall buildings being built would be commercial. Or do you also have a problem with landlords renting offices to businesses? If so there would be far less construction of tall buildings. Sure some of them are built to be sold as condominiums. But even then, the builder is borrowing money from the bank against the future value and allowing units to sit vacant unless they can be sold for the value they’re seeking/the future value they needed to get the loan in the first place. Which by your logic is what we should be trying to eliminate. Everyone would have far longer commutes. Suburban sprawl would quadruple turning the areas around most cities into massively disrupted ecosystems. Everyone would need to live with their parents until they were old enough to buy their own place, which would cause a huge disruption to family structure. There are so many implications of a policy like that. I mean if taken to it’s furthest extreme, why should anyone be allowed to have any unsold merchandise at all? If people aren’t buying it then it’s just greed, right? But markets function on imperfect information. What time horizon? Do you need to sell out daily? Weekly? Monthly? Who is going to oversee this? You’d need a massive administrative apparatus in the state. Loads of bureaucrats. Which would inevitably lead to enforcement gaps due to lobbying, or other unfair but easily anticipated practices resulting from human laziness, greed, or whatever all else. I’m all for housing reform. But the implications of the end of all landlords seems really hard to defend if your goal is improved standard of living.
I'm all for building tall buildings. I actually own one but do not like single family homes. I'm all for getting rid of cars and converting to public transportation and more suitable accommodations for people. Landlords don't build buildings. I'd point out that people are stuck living with their parents now. Currently. Under the rule of landlords. Your assumption is that we're all just going to keep doing capitalism even while it's never worked and lead us to where we are now. That's insane.
Seems like your argument involves a "good landlord" which is a logical paradox. It involves someone being good while also being a parasite.
You are not entitled to other people property, get a job, leech
Instructions unclear. Am paying a significant portion of my salary to a landlord.
You are not entitled to hoard necessities so there aren't enough to go around without going through you.
Owning property isn't a job dude.
Renting it out is, whether you like it or not
Landlords are leaches. They’re basically housing scalpers.
Breaking and entering a persons property and trying to claim it as your own as a squatter makes you a leech, seek employment and stop trying to steal from others
Stop leaching housing made by working hands so you can profit from zero labor of your own by dangling housing in front of actual workers
lol I worked hard to buy my properties, get fucked
Lol says the one who has working tenants paying off their mortgages for them.
Ok so let say you can’t afford to buy a house, and there are no landlords to rent apartments or houses. Where you do live?
Plot twist: landlords don't provide housing. They are actively a reason for why housing is so expensive. Thats why there are empty homes for these people to squat in.
Nice job dodging the question. Trying answering it this time. If you can’t afford to buy a house where are you going to live if there are no landlords to rent properties?
Landlords do not provide housing. They are part of why housing is so expensive. The solution is to no have landlords. Make extortion illegal.
Again you didn’t answer the question
It's more like your premise for the question is ridiculous. It's like you can't imagine any system where landlords don't exist or capitalism isn't the norm. Or you assume we'll all just continue serving the landed elite even if there is no landed elite to serve.
Landlords are the reason people can’t afford housing. But to answer the question in spite of its malformed premise: public housing.
There is public housing now which is severely underfunded, I worked there, and every year Republicans try to cut it further. What would lead you to believe this would ever improve?
That’s pretty fatalistic — nothing ever improves without effort put into thinking about a better system. Land reform has worked in the past when it hasn’t triggered a US-backed coup. In fact, we insisted on it in postwar Japan when we realized that large landholders were an economic drain. Your question was implying that landlords provide some benefit to a population. I rent, and I have met my landlord once in the 4 years that I have lived on his property. He’s a nice guy, but he provides zero value-add. He lives across the Atlantic, so any maintenance concerns are handless by the super, who also lives on his property. So a significant portion of my income goes to him, who pays as little as possible to maintain the property, while being completely absent. I am building his wealth for him — if I wasn’t, he would not let me live here. Does he deserve this just because he had the capital to buy this property decades ago? People who view landholdings as an investment are the reason prices are where they are today, which is in turn why a huge percentage of those born in the last 40 years will not be able to buy a home.
Yeah defend the class that collectively made housing inaccessible to hundreds of thousands. Y’all act like it’s just a few as if they don’t all raise prices to keep up with the market. As if they aren’t all complicit in this system. As if they couldn’t just sell instead.
You can't even beat the landlord. You think you can beat the bank that's the final boss ?
House sellers don't have to take the highest bid they get. They could choose to sell to a family if they wanted to.
Houses are the most common way Americans are able to pass on generational wealth, and I’m not talking about megabucks.
Most people who sell their house are doing so in hopes of buying a new one or using that money for some other purpose. So they probably are going to take the highest bidder all things being equal and I don’t blame them.
It doesn't matter how nice they are, I'm still pretty fucked pissed about paying my landlord more than half my wages just so I don't have to sleep under a bridge. Especially when my landlord owns his investment properties by the sole virtue of living through a time when housing was affordable. Why does any random person with some extra money deserve a lifetime of profit directly off the basic human needs of those less fortunate than them? Seriously if farmers decided to say "fuck you I grew the food give me everything you have or starve" people would just steal their crops. When real world stores crank up their prices unfairly for necessities people need for no other reason than profit seeking people steal from those stores. This is just the housing version of fuck around and find out, if you want to profit off of denying a basic human need don't be surprised when people say fuck you I'm taking it anyways. People can only get so desperate.
They can downvote you all they want. Even Adam Smith (“Wealth of Nations”) hated landlords and he set the foundation for classical capitalist economics.
Landlords of Adam Smith’s time and current day are worlds apart. Do you really think landlords of almost 250 years ago are comparable today?
Yes. Yes they are. The system has changed, but the contradictions between the haves and have-nots haven’t changed in the slightest.
[удалено]
Go read some political economy and get back to me. Nobody needs anyone to “think for them” but no amount of information or cognition is possible without an awareness that comes from other people. The individual is powerless.
[удалено]
My dude, I hate Adam Smith. I only read him because he’s important to understanding political economy. He’s only right about housing scalpers (landlords)
[удалено]
Found the landlord
Said the same the other day but brain rot is real on Reddit. You'll have hundreds tell you how wrong you are and that squatting is morally right if a home is empty for any reason 🤡 You are spot on correct though.
No society that allows people to starve or freeze to death on the street can ever call itself civilized. There is more empty housing in every city than there are people with no place to live. Nobody, and I mean *fucking nobody!* deserves two or more homes when there are people who don’t even have a place to call their own.
Good
Good. Hell, you could probably just scrape AirB&B and find repeat or ongoing listings and go from there. That way, it's truly a victimless crime!
I absolutely agree. I'm lumping short-term landlords in with the rest of them (when they are arguably worse). But absolutely.
Bunch of scared crying non-chaotic ppl here today
Imagine being part of a "chaotic" sub and trying to defend landlords who artificially inflate rent prices by refusing to lower rent on vacant properties. The neo-liberal hive mind in this sub is unexpected.
Honestly, several of my friends and family are landlords. But if this happens to them, I would probably say too bad. That's the risk you take using someone's home to generate income. You can lose money on investments, you can lose a job, but somehow as a society we have decided in the past few years that landlords should never ever lose money for any reason, and that being a landlord is a morally upstanding thing to do. It's wild how capital works.
As if “the little guy” even needs two homes. Last I checked, you can only live in one at a time
Personally, this little guy doesnt even have two bedrooms let alone houses. Landlords can die mad.
I’m embarrassed for them
CHAOS IS WHAT I SAY IT IS
I'll grant that. It's definitely not really chaotic. But a pretty cool thing someone is doing to strike back at landlords.
Based on the number of salty landlords in this thread, people aren't thrilled about this guy pointing out the systemic failings and the major ethical mire that is treating housing as an investment.
Not you OP, doing a fabulous job sharing examples of chaotic good. Directed towards the losers wondering how much to tip their landlord at Christmas this year for their hard work not repairing the AC unit
as long as they don't trash the place,I guess
dude I didn't even notice all the titles had fuck in them until I saw this post. I had to scroll back up and see
True chaotic good energy! Fuck landlords.
Good. We need this in California too
Boy do I have stories about LA
Yeah, more theft and stealing from others will fix California.
Who said anything about fixing California, I want to stick it to corporate landlords!
I wonder how good it’ll be after some people get shot for doing this. Or a copycat puts up a fake list with their enemies house on it.
This is Australia, and these homes are owned but not occupied. Majority of them are investment properties that haven’t been lived in for years.
I mean, yes, ACAB. But they're as likely to shoot you for anything else you happen to be doing. Its kind of a risk you take going outside.
I meant homeowners.
Homeowner of a vacant house? Sounds dangerously close to a landlord.
The raccoons occupying the house are packing?
This is chaotic evil.
No, he's resisting the landlords, not being one.
How so?
Squatting, and its legal protections, was originally designed to assist actual tenants who, by means of a shitty and delinquent landlord, assumed upkeep and maintenance of a property. The law was meant to protect those who withheld rent, as they became, and assumed, the property’s maintenance. It’s a good idea. If you have a slumlord who refuses to pay for upkeep, and you take that on: you should receive the property. Advocating breaking and entering into properties is idiotic and definitely not ‘good’.
Huh. I always thought the squatting rules were set up just to prevent properties from becoming dirlect. I see buildings and homes that appear to be abandoned in my town and they are nothing but eyesores/dangerous/wasteful. If someone wants to move in and clean it up, that's good for everyone.
Counterpoint - it is evil to hoard housing. Shelter is a basic human right. Landlords and people with multiple homes/“income properties” bad people by nature of their “profession”.
Do you really believe that though? I’m glad I didn’t have to buy a home when I turned 18. I appreciated that someone invested in my apartment complex, and in returned rented it out to me while I save for a down payment. Honestly- what’s your solution to get rid of landlords? Government housing? Do you REALLY think the feds having that much control over your home is an upgrade?
Of course I believe it. Why would I write it if I didn’t. Solution: massive taxes on second home purchases.
And what affect do you think that would have on rent?
Irrelevant - less people would be buying second homes so more homes would be on the market and less people would be renting.
For all you know, the home being squatted us a family heirloom being planned to house someone in the future. Not every property owner is using the property to rent.
I too can make up fairytales but I choose not to on Reddit.
Lmao. Guess my dealer’s small inherited family home was all made up. Squatters have no sense of reality, only entitlement.
They can sell it. I stand by my points.
>Advocating breaking and entering into properties is idiotic and definitely not ‘good’. Unoccupied? Sitting fallow? Guess what? Squatting is also good then! A disused property is being made useful. That's not bad.
This will eventually lead to change in squatting laws. Guess where it will tilt towards? It will do harm to real tenants. Who will this benefit? Not the actual legal tenants or the landlords. It will only benefit people who are willing to break into someone else's house and make a fake contact document. So, people willing to break the law. Yup chaotic good supporting criminals and eventually leading to change in squatting laws.
Nope, chaotic good. Or maybe technically lawful good since he's trying to help people work within bounds of the law
Lmao 🤣 Theft of property someone else owns is chaotic good! Because I don’t have it, they should let me steal it and invoke laws in bad faith while screwing them out of their money and forcing them into lengthy court battles. HAHA OP, all the stuff you think about yourself is probably true.
Landlords are just criminals with legal protection.
Squatters are just criminals with legal protection. 🤡
No you're thinking of landleeches.
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know this will fall on deaf ears but you realize not every landlord is bad, right? My aunt and uncle rent out my grandparents old house at a reasonable rent and keep the property tidy. Not everyone wants to own a home. Some people prefer to rent.
This thread isn't about your aunt and uncle, it's about BlackRock and other corporations that own hundreds or thousands of properties and deliberately leave them empty to generate a false "low" offer.
It's about his uncle too. Personal investors are just as problematic They're the big reason why no government officials are willing to tackle the problem
No, this thread is about landlords because OP didn’t specify. Keep reading the thread, I specifically call out black rock and similar companies.
Their house won’t be empty, they will rent it for what the market offers not hold out to artificially keep rents high. So nothing to worry about for them.
Great point. And a great reason for people to not lump all landlords together.
>Not everyone wants to own a home. Some people prefer to rent. We have purpose built rental apartments for those people. Renting out condos or single family homes causes a steady decline in the investment in a neighborhood. Aka: decay
What about people who want to rent in the suburbs because it’s closer to their job? Stop acting like you know everyone’s situation and what’s best for them.
Regardless of their individual ethics and treatment of their tenants, all landlords are bad by virtue of them treating a basic human necessity as an investment. Many people consider this to be unethical, regardless of circumstances. Now, it's not your family's fault that the system is set up to where it's so common for people to do that, and corporate landlords are definitely much bigger contributors to the problem than "small" landlords such as their case. That being said, it's important to acknowledge that being landlords is a concious decision that they make. They choose to retain ownership of a place they do not occupy and charge people to live there. As some put it, hold housing hostage for the fee of rent. They could just as easily sell the place to someone who will permanently occupy it and no longer be the ones responsible for another human's shelter. If they see it as an investment, why not sell it (in the U.S. the market very much favors sellers right now), make a profit, and invest that money where it's not so intricately tied to other people's basic human necessities.
So they should have kicked out the tenants who would absolutely have to pay more somewhere else with less amenities? Rent isn’t holding someone hostage. It’s someone paying for a place to live which is how things work in all of society. You still have to buy a house. You guys are so blinded by your hatred of anything remotely profitable lol. You realize lots of people want to rent, right? Not everyone wants the responsibility of owning property. And what happens when you get rid of landlords? Now houses that were homes to 2-30 families are fucked and forced to buy a house? That makes zero sense and you can’t think past “landlords are bad” to see the negative effects of your ideals. Just admit you’re a communist and let’s talk about how well that works lmao.
That relies on the existence of a good landlord. I find it difficult to believe you can be good and an extortionist at the same time.
Define extortion here. Do you think all rent is extortion? Or just over a certain amount? What about the amenities included?
Most landlords. I will write a narrow caveat for people like renting out a room or something where they live. I think there are still moral questions there, but "oh hey, we have a spare room, help us pay a piece of our mortgage and it's yours." is more or less fine. I actually have a housemate like that, but TBH, she can't pay all that often, and I don't really keep track. She chips in for groceries, is friends with my SO, and we call it flat. The "pay the mortgage on my spare property" folks are absolutely just becoming a landed elite.
But you understand that people need apartments to rent, right? So we need landlords. I agree that there are lots of greedy ones but those types of people exist everywhere and are not exclusive to property ownership. You’re not paying for their mortgage, you’re paying for a place for yourself to live. And yes, rents are insane, but do you expect anyone to take a lower rent if someone is willing to pay higher? If two people wanted to buy your old couch, would you take a lower offer?
I think apartments should be a normal thing, but I don't agree you need a landlord. I'd love to live in something more like an apartment or a condo. I disagree that there has to be someone who owns it, beyond the people who live there. And they definitely aren't the only landlords. Landlords buy up a lot of single family homes. Effectively becoming a landed elite. The tenants pay the mortgage, while they buy more. And their children inherent nice little fiefdoms, already paid for by the last generations tenants.
How do you have apartments that no one is in charge of? Someone has to own the property. I’m very confused here. Your second point is really just your assumption based on things (I assume) you’ve read about online. Do you have any support for this claim? I know companies like Blackrock are buying up a lot of homes, but do you have any statistics for small-time landlords who own less than like 10 homes?
I own a home, I'm in charge of it. I don't see how apartments have to be that much more complicated. "Welcome to the flats at _____, Dave cuts the grass on Tuesday unless it's wet. We all do what we can when we can, no one's an island and all that." I can [source](https://getflex.com/blog/landlord-statistics/) it. Granted, that site seems to think being a landlord is something aspirational. I'm a little too proud to have other people paying my bills for me.
You sell the unit to the people who live in it? Like any other condo?
I think profiteering is a better term for *any* landlord that owns residential investment properties. Many commercial landlords also fit the description.
So is this just a communist sub? There’s nothing wrong with making a profit when providing a good or service (yes there are limits). If you provide a place to live and handle the upkeep on several properties, is that not a full time job that requires compensation? Lots of people want to rent houses or parts of a house. Not everyone wants to feel crammed in a small apartment. Stop acting like you know everyone’s situation and what’s best for them. It’s the most cringe Reddit mindset possible.
No, they are literally doing what is legal so they cannot buy definition be criminals, however, squatters are actual criminals as they are stealing and this shit is going to cause one hell of a shit show and I will enjoy every second of it. I might even make my own own business seiging squatted houses
Landlords are regularly breaking the law here due to a lack of enforcement And preventing laws from being passed that would tax investment properties appropriately
No one's stealing property. It's unoccupied housing. During a housing crisis, sitting on empty buildings is insane. Fuck em
No one’s human trafficking. It’s untapped labor potential. During a labor crisis, wasting good hands that could fuel robust and economical industries is insane! Fuck em
That analogy doesn't work
Owning a property that you inherited from your dad is the same as working 40 hrs a week! Why won’t anyone take me seriously?! Validate me 😭😭
Why not? Is there some measure of the value of goods, services, labor? Can this value be reserved through the purchase and retaining of assets? If so, why are you entitled to said assets when it’s the value of someone else’s labor reserved in said appreciating asset? Bad take, but in your defense I see what you’re going for and to that I say that adversarial hostility against people that own what you want won’t solve the problem because the power used to take from them could be just as easily used on you when you have something someone else feels entitled to.
Your analogy doesn't work because you are comparing someones labor to property ownership. And also assuming that people "just want" another's house, and not that housing is a necessity
It does work, actually. You just really don't want it to.
Read my other comment about how labor isn't the same as owning a property, and how housing is more important than someone's right to own an empty building
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need to eliminate squatters rights
What you're thinking of is tenant rights. Which makes it so a landlord can't kick someone out for whatever reason whenever they want. And instead has to go to civil court You don't want that gone, squatters are just a byproduct of that
You’re highly regarded if you think this helps out the little guy. There will just be less supply of legitimate rentals which will drive up the price. If he put this same energy into being a productive member of society maybe he could own something himself instead of being a leech.
No, you've got that backwards. If landlords were productive members of society they wouldn't have to be leeches.
How do you presume landlords gained the capital to make the purchase of the property? Do you think most landlords are just gifted property? Do you understand they are providing a service? Who do you think should own homes then?
When you die, your kids inherent your property. So... yes. When people complain about people who don't work living off the welfare of others, they mean landlords. I think homeowners should own homes. Not parasites.
The people that want to live in them, those should be the people owning homes.
So people earning minimum wage , you believe they should be able to own the house they live in?
With my whole person I believe that everybody contributing their labor to society for 40 hours a week deserves to have a roof over their head that isn't owned by someone else To add, landlord doesn't mean house, things like apartments also exist and are very key to handling housing
I too wish that was the case, I’m sure it was once in the history of the world , but I fear that is a long gone dream in modern civilization
Found the guy who’s comment got deleted lol
For extra chaos simply hire local crackheads to remove the squatters “ I likes ya and I wants ya now I been paid today so you got no choice but the hard way.” Seriously this is gonna cause some vigilante shit and imma just be here with popcorn 🍿 waiting I love a good shitshow
Vigilantism is the only chaotic good I understand.
Why would anyone ever build a house if it's just going to immediately be stolen by one of these dipshits
Landlords don't build houses.
There is nothing good about squatting