• Ibaudia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I would argue that owning additional property in an environment where there is a housing shortage is implicitly unethical even if you’re trying to run it ethically. Only argument I can think of against that is that you’re keeping it from shittier landlords and corporations. But still, denying others the opportunity to grow their wealth through property ownership causes poverty on a mass scale. Not any one person’s fault, but still.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      We charge well under mortgage rates for rent. It’s affordable. I hate to throw this out there, but our intent is never to “extract” the max profit from someone. If someone wants to rent at the upper extent of their ability to pay it’s not what we’re forcing on someone.

      • Lifekraft@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        The only reason you own a second house is for profit. A profit you are doing directly from an other individual. You can twist that how you want, it’s the reality. You are doing it respectfully and are providing a service. But an artificial one.

        • onion@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          What if it’s run at cost? (And the property value were to stay level)

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re still extracting wealth from the tenant, and the tenant is only losing money. You’re still preventing the tenant from building their wealth through property ownership.

            The ethical thing to do in this situation would be to sell the house to the tenant at a price proportional to the rent, minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point.

            • onion@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Sorry I genuinly don’t follow. If I were to rent out at cost, that means if the tenant were the owner, they’d have to pay the same cost as well. So they’re losing the same amount of money either way.

              And how would they be building wealth through property, if the property value doesn’t rise? They would buy the flat for say 50k$, and then own 50k$ worth of property

              minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point

              I think you’re assuming that I would be paying off a loan with their rent? By renting at cost I meant their rent covers maintanance/upkeep

      • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It can be fairly priced, but that doesn’t really change anything I said before. It’s not how the property is run that’s the problem, it’s that it’s owned by someone who isn’t living there during a time where that, on its own, creates problems.