If they created an LLC, then whatever happens to their business, they can always just get a different job and their own housing situation will remain stable.

If they didn't, maybe because they couldn't get a large enough loan to buy property without putting up their own collateral, that was presumably their choice.

I don't want anyone to lose access to housing (or food, or healthcare), but I'm much more worried about renters ending up unhoused than landlords.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't want anyone to lose access to housing (or food, or healthcare), but I'm much more worried about renters ending up unhoused than landlords.As it stated, most are charging reasonable prices at or below market price. Meaning they are one tiny dam blocking hundreds of thousands of people who can't afford to live in that city from being homeless. It's one of the biggest takeaways when you read the article.

Most landlords, the large majority, are essentially people who decided to put their savings into equity rather than tossing their money into a big giant pile for the rich to make themselves richer, aka, the stock market. Sometimes you toss it somewhere and just lose it.

Their price to pay for that equity are taxes and upkeep. Their payoff is selling it when they retire or giving it to their children or grandchildren. I don't think I've ever rented from any suburban or rural landlord that wasn't in one of these two positions.

These people aren't megacorporations buying up land from potential homeowners. They're people in their 60s and 70s now realizing that their investment more often than not was a poor one. They subsidize their tenants allowing them to live in cities and areas they normally wouldn't. And when they die, the homes are going to children to either sell for a quick buck to fund their own kids college or moving into them when they're house is now too big since the kids just moved.

As always, the gamut of possibilities is way too wide for such anti-human extremist propaganda that gets pushed then eaten up by people who should know better.

[–] Jordan_U@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So far the worst outcome for landlords that you have posed is that they "realize that their investment was a poor one".

And yes, I want that landlord's grandchildren to be able to afford college (which I think should be free for all, paid for by tax increases on the rich).

But you have to admit that we're talking about vastly different worlds here, right?

What percentage of renters live paycheck to paycheck and are at risk of living on the street?

What percentage of landlords are at risk of living on the street?

What percentage of renters expect to be able to leave enough in money and assets to their children, so that those children can afford to pay college tuition for the renter's grandchildren?

I agree with you that dehumanizing people is wrong. I agree that landlords can struggle too.

I agree that there are worse people / entities that could own apartment complexes and houses.

But you haven't really convinced me that I should worry about the general well-being of the landlord class, or that it's worth my time and energy to chide renters who say mean things about them online.