Reason I’m asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say “city” think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn’t seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I’m not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don’t overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.

I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don’t see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.

Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the “landlords are bad” sentinment?

  • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Depends on the leftist, but generally I think hoarding land you’re not personally using, especially during a housing crisis, is wrong.

    I also think that charging rent from people to simply exist in a place you aren’t using anyway is wrong. When she pays the mortgage she’s buying equity, when they pay the rent they’re buying jack shit. It’s an enormous parasitic drain on the economy.

    But I don’t think she’s, like, evil. Not the same way that major landlord companies are. And I understand the motivations. I still disagree with the methods, but until the great commie revolution/rapture (/s) comes we all have to engage with problematic capitalist systems to a greater or lesser extent.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Landlordism is parasitic. The point of Leftism isn’t to attack individuals, but structures, and replace them with better ones. Trying to morally justify singular landlords ignores the key of the Leftist critique and simplifies it to sloganeering.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    People who are renting out their basement or spare room are fine. They are living on their property and making space for someone else to live there as well.

    Someone who owns property they do not live on, and are profiting off their renters just because their name is on the deed is the definition of parasitic behavior. There’s a reason “rent seeking behavior” is a derogatory term.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Both. A better statement would be “Landlords and real estate investors” are parasites. If you can afford a home you don’t live in them you are driving up prices on homes that others could live in, fuck you.

  • s_s@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Your Aunt should be paying enough taxes that owning a second property should be more or less unfeasible.

    A fair system would have her seeking other retirement vehicles.

  • DrFistington@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    Typically small landlords (I was one) are not the problem, But they aren’t making things any easier. They still take up houses that they don’t need that should be on the market, and they charge about twice what thier mortgage rate is to renters, which then artifically inflates housing prices, while also restricting home inventory. People with a handful of properteries aren’t really the main driver of the issues though. One corporate landlord with 500 properties would do much more damage, but they all harm the market to an extent.

  • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    When people said “slave owners are evil pieces of shit” do they also mean the people who only owned 1 or 2 to help out with the family, or only the large plantation owners?

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Are they renting out for as cheap as they can afford? Modest profit aside is fair.

    If they’re like “oh wow. I can raise from 1800$/mo to 2500$/mo bc everyone else is”. That’s where it’s concerning.

    Personally, if I was in their shoes, I would interview and find a struggling family and subsidize their rent from the other tenants for two of the 5 houses for as long as I could afford to.

    (I own nothing right now, it’s looking bleak)

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Does your Aunt get paid rent from the people living in those houses? Is that rent more than it costs to own and maintain the properties? Yeah, thought so. Yes, your aunt is a parasite. She is extracting profit from other people simply by virtue of being the one to own the property that she doesn’t live in. She isn’t providing value, she’s restricting access.

    She may be a lovely lady the rest of the time, I’m sure she lives a vibrant and full life elsewhere, but that doesn’t change what she’s doing. Nobody owns “a couple of houses as an investment” if they’re not making money off of them, and they’re only making money by extracting it from the people who have to rent.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Individual landlords can be the worst ones. Here’s what that often looks like:

    1. individual inherits a home
    2. they rent it out and quit their job
    3. the rent is their only income so they are really cheap about maintenance and repairs
    4. they make any repair the tenant’s “fault” and force them to pay for it
    5. they raise the rent at every opportunity to the maximum the market will bear, because that is the only way their own income ever rises
    6. they do repairs and maintenance themselves, even though they are unskilled, because that’s cheaper, and the quality of all the work is poor, using the cheapest materials possible (I once had a landlord paint our house puke orange because she got a deal on that awful paint).
  • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m sure your aunt doesn’t mean any harm, but she is still part of the problem. Those 3-5 properties are 3-5 fewer homes available to own for new families and are a small part of perpetuating the housing crisis.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yes, but I don’t blame the small ones for it.

    If you can make a profit by hoarding properties and renting them out, then the system is broken.

    The large ones are the ones lobbying for the systems to remain broken.

  • SwearingRobin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    I do believe a lot of landlords don’t care and will make decisions based on what makes them more money versus the well-being of the people living in their property. But I don’t agree that landlords as a concept are bad, and that they all should sell their extra properties to reduce the crazy prices we’re having.

    There are plenty of reasons someone would prefer to rent than to buy, and if there are no landlords or rental houses what happens to those cases? I personally have attended university not at my home city, and I rented an apartment with other students. It makes no sense to buy in that situation. People who intend to live somewhere temporarily would mostly prefer to rent, what would happen then?

    There is a problem with regulation, big companies owning whole apartment buildings, and generally small greedy landlords what will make their tenants life hell. But cutting out the whole concept is trading one issue with another.

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Especially those that own a couple houses as “investment”. Housing should not be an investment. With the big companies you could argue at least that they are also building houses, which we need since the government wont build enough. Not saying they arent parasites either though.