So, if I own an apartment / house / room, I can't go and have a contract with another person willing to take on that contract and live in my place by the agreed rules beforehand?

What would you envision as the alternative to tenanted apartment complexes?

Let’s say you could wave a wand and outlaw rental housing as a business. Do you think the world would be a better or worse place?

Actually, I don't. I know that there are people who would prefer not to.

But because of the way the system is set up, it is so trivial and common for landlords to be extremely abusive. I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead—but actually have that option, because what would have been set up as rental properties are instead genuinely low-cost housing for purchase—than see the system continue as it is now.

I also know it's very unlikely that the status quo is going anywhere, so this is almost entirely a theoretical discussion.

In such a world, how would anyone find a rental to live in? There are benefits to being able to rent in many different life situations.

Of course you're going to think that - it's in your best interest. But it's not fair to a tenant. Without regulations on evicting people asshole landlords could make families homeless for no reason. I don't think you should have to pay to evict someone but if you rent your property out there should be regulations in place to protect the tenant. If there weren't I think you find the market for rental properties start to diminish. People who could afford to buy (and that's true of a lot of renters) would to avoid the risk of their lives being turned upside down overnight.

I hate to go all "citation needed" on you, but I'm not sure this is true.

Do I want to pay for upkeep of a property? Probably not. But since renting is basically equivalent to burning money in our economy, any responsible renter will eventually feel a pull towards ownership if only to stop the bleeding.

I think we need a society where renting isn't so expensive AND owning a property isn't so heavily subsidized by tax breaks. The entire housing market is a massive bubble because of investors and speculation. At some point, that bubble prices people out, leading to homelessness and missed opportunities because people aren't willing or able to move.

Much like freedom of car-free movement, housing ought to be a fundamental human right. Not a business or a place to hide your money.

It's funny because I do live under a landlord such as myself, in a different city. I'm both a landlord and a tenant.

>Any day, for any reason or no reason, your entire life can be turned upside down. You can be effectively made homeless and given a very limited amount of time to find a similar alternative place to live that may or may not exist and may or may no be close to your work (which matters when you're poor and cannot afford public transport).

Sure, that would be inconvenient, but I'd get a reasonable amount of notice (60 days in any case where I haven't done anything wrong) which would be sufficient for me to line something else up.

>I'm not referring to rent control: I am talking about privacy of the tenant (inspection notification periods, etc), notice for evictions (e.g. 30 days)

Oh, so we're actually in agreement. I agree, there certainly needs to be notice if you feel like kicking your tenant out. That's just a matter of practicality.

That's rich coming from someone who thinks that owning should be the only way to have a dwelling.

No, I don't think that renting is the only way to have a dwelling.

However, I do think that renting is a better option than owning for many people.

Moreover, I don't think that telling people how they should and shouldn't have dwellings is good.

> How about a system that doesn’t primarily benefit property owners?

Why would anyone want to own their house in a system that does not benefit them?

I disagree, rental housing is a thing that does need to go away, or at least be severly limited.

Because there's a strong trend towards corporations owning all housing and then everybody must rent from them.

(as a milenial my chances of owning the place I live in are small... specially in big cities; I looked into it, I would need to get a loan and then pay the loan amount twice over for the next 30 years to buy a shitty small appartment without a real kitchen).

They wouldnt be renters if they could afford buying homes and that would make them home owners, living in their own homes not someone else’s.

It would be interesting to see how quickly your attitude would change if you weren't wealthy and were living under a landlord such as yourself.

Any day, for any reason or no reason, your entire life can be turned upside down. You can be effectively made homeless and given a very limited amount of time to find a similar alternative place to live that may or may not exist and may or may no be close to your work (which matters when you're poor and cannot afford public transport).

The power imbalance in this type of situation is just horrifying. Even if the tenant pays their rent on-time the landlord could still easily utilise the eviction threat in order to control the tenant (e.g. "your apartment is untidy, clean it or I'll evict you." "You went to a protest last week that I disagree with, goodbye!" "Give me your postal vote or I'll evict you.").

It might be your "property" but it is someone elses HOME. Their basic rights trump your property rights.

That's why regulation has to exist to stop people like you, so people (particularly poor people with fewer choices), get basic rights and the power imbalance is corrected.

I'm not referring to rent control: I am talking about privacy of the tenant (inspection notification periods, etc), notice for evictions (e.g. 30 days), written understanding of both the tenant and landlord's responsibilities (or default ones under the law if they lack), and so on.

It is your property, but when you rented it to someone to be their HOME part of that transaction is taking money but in exchange knowingly enabling someone else's basic rights. Those basic rights don't start and end at a rental cheque.

This varies a lot.

I don't actually care to own a house too much but we are going to buy one soon because the rental market in my area has gone in-fucking-sane in the last few years so its ao much cheaper to own in my neighborhood, I'm basically lighting dollar bills on fire every month with how inflated rents are.

Oh, and landlords are so stupid. We are model tenants, both very high income... but we have a cat so we are ineligible to rent 90% of properties, no exceptions.

That is because it is a landlord's market right now.

I don't think governments have any business promoting home ownership though and society shouldn't make you feel like you didn't "make it" until you are strapped with a mortgage you can't afford.

Either own a home or be homeless. That's more humane. /s

They are free to raise the rent to any amount. They just are limited in doing that for the purpose of forcing the tenant to move out so that the owner can move in, and avoiding payment to the tenant that would otherwise be required under the owner-moves-in rules.

> If I want to charge you $900,000 per second to rent my house, I am free to, and you are free to not rent it then.

Sure, but if you do that to get me to move out so you can move in, where there are OMI rules, you still have to make the OMI payment. Or, better, don't bother with the pretext and just make the payment.

Holy shit this is insane. Do you actually believe renting has no benefits?

When you purchase a property you’re on the hook for that mortgage payment for the next 30 years. Buyers absorb an enormous amount of risk. Maintenance is time consuming and expensive.

Renters can leave whenever they like and have no long term financial ties to the state of the property.

I guess everyone needs someone to fight against huh?

In laws and in government I look for measures to maximize my liberty. I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me.

I am ultimately responsible for my happiness. I don't think governments can make people happy and I don't think they should try

> I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out."

If landlords are in the business of doing things like this, I would like to start a company that doesn't treat it's customers like garbage and take money out of the pockets of such landlords

That doesn't change the fact that renting is, by definition, non-permanent while ownership is permanent.

What do you suggest as an alternative? That all ownership be done away with? That a special exception for ownership of things be made if the thing in question is land or houses? That ownership of things that is either land or houses be limited? Taxed higher?

Government protecting the right to own things is the basis of civilisation.

Residential renters have their own protections too, in many places, allowing for renters to sometimes live for extended periods rent-free. There are limits on the rental adjustments, limits on evictions, etc.

A solution could be to encourage more housing to be built. Another one is to encourage economic development in other areas, so renters can move to other areas where they can afford to buy.

Insisting that people should not have to move and should be able to purchase their own home where they are, AND if they want to rent, then they never have to move again is simply unreasonable and ridiculous.

Not necessarily. It depends on whom you're giving the money to. If it's a profit-oriented company or investor or the like, then I'd tend to agree with you.

On the other hand, I'm renting my apartment from a housing cooperative that I'm also a member of. The cooperative releases a yearly financial report detailing that rents are for the most part used for maintaining the buildings owned by the cooperative, and to buy new land and construct new buildings.

I consider that model very sensible; it allows me to delegate all tasks relating to the maintenance of my apartment to people who are more competent in this area, and who can negotiate better rates with craftspeople.

It also gives me much of the social security that people usually associate with self-owned apartments or buildings since my lease contract literally states that the cooperative is not allowed to throw me out of the apartment (given that I obey the rules of the house, of course). But at the same time, I have the flexibility to easily move to a different apartment somewhere else in the city (or somewhere else entirely) without having to deal with selling the apartment and buying a new one.