• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This seems like it would just drive landlords to evict families to cram more people into buildings.

    If that was feasible they would already be doing it. It would also be harder to find people willing to live in these cramped places once there are houses available to purchase.

    Ok, forcing landlords to live on the property kills owning multiple properties… But why not just deal with that? That’s the problem! Not people renting houses. Ban or heavily tax multiple residential property ownership. 100% ban corporations from owning residential properties. But housing associations, individuals renting out their one house, and other similar small scale letting is good for people who want to rent.

    I don’t see the practical difference here, where is the person who owns the property living if they are renting it out? Personally this sounds like a loop-hole that would allow married couples to purchase a 2nd property to rent. But sure, banning corporations from owning residential properties and individuals from owning more than 1 sounds like a good idea to me.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      They are already doing it, I just said so. And I explained previously the reasons that someone might want to rent out their house short term. And if a couple own two houses between them, is that really such a disaster? There is, as I’ve tried to express, a demand for rental properties, even in a world where we can all afford houses. Arbitrarily reducing this to specific types of houses, or specific living conditions doesn’t help renters, it just makes things more difficult.