Especially when those 2nd, 3rd, + properties are being used as passive short term rentals. Observing the state of the housing situation “Hmm there aren’t enough homes for normal families to each have a chance, I should turn this extra property of mine into a vacation rental.” does this make said person a POS?

  • Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    The problem isn’t people owning an extra house for a nest egg. It’s companies owning hundreds of them.

    • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If housing is an investment (“a nest egg”) then the people and policies that support it as an investment will stand directly opposed to people and policies that want housing to be affordable and a right.

      Housing cannot be an investment vehicle akin to stocks in a society that meaningfully values housing for everyone as an objective to strive for.

    • rainynight65@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Real estate as an investment, retirement provision or object of speculation is precisely the problem. Every home that gets bought as an investment in an inflated housing market directly contributes to the problem, by cutting people out of the opportunity of ownership and making them dependent on paying rent.

  • normalexit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m far less concerned about individuals buying an extra house they can rent out. I’m more concerned with hedge funds buying up cities with cash offers that normal people can’t compete with.

    I personally wouldn’t own multiple homes for many reasons, but for people trying to eject out of the corporate grind, I get it.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t consider it unethical. For example if my father dies and I inherit his house where I grew up, he grew up, his father grew up and his grandfather built. That house has a lot of sentimental value in it. I have settled down very far from there. What am I supposed to do? Throw away the family legacy or uproot my entire life?

      I think as long as I don’t rent it out it’s acceptable to own it. It’s just extra cost for me to keep something of sentimental value in the family. I’d even be okay with paying extra tax on it considering I think every house you own that you don’t live in should be taxed extra.

      • Noobnarski@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I would say owning it while not using it very much and not renting it out is the least ethical choice as no one can use that house.

        The most ethical option besides not owning it is renting it out at a reasonable price, so someone else can live there and you are not squeezing every last dollar out of them.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I guess I should’ve specified. I don’t think it’s rent-able. It’s more than a 100 year old house in the middle of nowhere with more than 100 year old plumbing (hint, no plumbing), no internet outside of mobile network which is also very flaky since there aren’t many cell towers nearby, water comes from a nearby well which limits the amount of water you can use because it’s not a deep well and the list goes on. It’s not a modern house that’s going to just sit empty, it’s a relic from a different era where the main value the house has is of sentimental value. If it was to get sold the next “owner” would most likely tear down the house and turn the entire plot of land into agricultural land.

          If it was a decent apartment somewhere where people would actually want to live I’d absolutely “rent” it out. Not take any profits from it, put a bit to the side in case something breaks and if they leave without breaking anything they get their money back.

      • firadin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah yes, your family legacy of a house no one lives in is more important than a human beings ability to have shelter

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Perfect is the enemy of good. You’re not at home while you’re working and if you do full time then a third of the day you’re not using your home, why don’t you let others use your home while you’re not using it? You’re also putting your individual needs above giving someone else shelter, the only difference is where you’ve drawn the line.

              • firadin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Don’t own more than one house. Why is that so hard for you people to understand

                • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  This is why nobody listens to people like you. Someone has a legitimate grievance trying to do what you want them to do and what is your response? Completely ignore the grievance and go “I can’t believe how fucking stupid you are, just do the thing.” Really helpful.