I think people on conflating it with that, but there is some distinction. The company doesn’t appear to have a monopoly on all housing, commerce, entertainment, and employment within the area, but are working to provide some housing options for its employees. It’s kind of hard to draw a direct parallel to “company towns” where the company controls everything.
We already have great examples of the shitshow tenements the government builds. Who you going to trust to do it right?
The problem the company is solving, specifically when they rent the house and don’t sell it: employee retention.
If a company wants to become a real estate developer and sell the housing to its employees, that’s fine. Assuming they’re actually increasing housing stock and not just gentrifying at the expense of locals. But as we all see with the American health care system, linking basic living needs to your employment is a terrible plan, and renting a company house sounds like “company towns” for that reason.
Going from employed, housed and insured to the opposite of all 3 because you got sick of your boss demanding you work weekends is pretty dystopian and exactly where this plan would lead.
Tl:dr- we don’t need any more fucking rentals, we need more home owners (generally, idgaf about anyone’s personal preference for renting or owning. If you want to hire a parasite to fix your pipes 3 weeks after they break in exchange for paying his mortgage that’s between you and your god).
Renting from the company is bad, like my original post. It’s solving for employee retention, not affordable housing.
But go off
If the rent is below market rate, it’s solving for both, at least temporarily during the employment period. Which may be ok or desired by the employee.
If the employee wants to stay within that area even after their employment ends, they can use the time that they are in the cheaper employer provided accommodations to find other housing. I think describing an employer provided housing for rent may really only be generally bad if the employer forces you to stay there and pay a captured rate as a condition of your employment.
If the employee leaves the company, they still own the home. The only caveat (and it’s understandable and reasonable IMO) appears to be that if the homeowner decides to sell the home within 3 years, the company has right of first refusal to buy the home at the same cost they originally sold it for to the employee.
You are making assumptions about the company’s motives that are based on your own biases. You seem to feel that the employee is somehow being wage abused for being offered a house to own at a below market rate. How is it that a) this situation describes a “company” town in the historical sense. And b) the employee is somehow abused for choosing to purchase a home below market value?
Edit: hit send too soon.
At any rate, you want to complain about the problem, and claim that what appears to be a working solution for an employer and it’s employees is somehow spurious, but have offered zero solutions other than outrage.
We get it, you are mad about housing affordability and want to comment about your anger. Post a solution, both here and elsewhere in the conversation you seem to avoid that. So be it.
The problem is the housing market has been inflated to astronomical levels because the housing industry is a critical part of our country GDP. If the price of homes fails to go up then banks will lose money and fail (just like in the aftermath of 2008). It's not profitable to build cheap, affordable housing so it doesn't happen.
The market is broken.