Ask HN: Why not have a society where renting an apartment/house is illegal?
Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead?
1. Unable to commit to a location long term (students, seasonal workers, people trying to find their fit)
2. Unable to fiscally purchase property (not everyone can just buy a condo
3. Unable to fiscally commit to a property/location - many people have dynamic incomes over time. What they can afford one year may not be the same the next.
Many people have unstable living situations one way or another, and I put myself in this category. People like the verbiage of “landlords do nothing” but in reality they take on the risk of property ownership so people forced to think short term don’t have to.
In this context, I don't care about "most people" - I care about me. And to use myself as an example - I rent an apartment because A. I like the freedom of not being tied down to a mortgage and a physical property, and B. I like not having to worry about maintenance. If the water heater goes out or the roof leaks, I am not on the hook to deal with it.
Going back to point (a) above - it's a lot easier for me to just pick up and move when I'm living in an apartment. Buying a house would have a much stronger effect of tying me to the place I'm currently living. So unless I'm 100% sold that "this is absolutely where I need and want to be for the foreseeable future" then that's a negative for buying a house.
And I think "most people" would prefer to have the freedom to make their own choices on matters like this.
They would be better off if they _owned_ a house (as opposed to have to rent with nothing to show for after they stop paying, and the ever-present threat of not affording to make the rent and ending up homeless - someone with a home is much more resilient to such pressure).
Not if they _had to_ buy one...
If they're barely making ends meet, this would be a burden they couldn't afford or recover from.
It would also make moving (e.g. to study or work in another area) much more difficult. Of course this would also have benefits, like making people tie with and appreciate/help to improve their area more, as opposed to viewing it as a temporary residence. But this is more about encouraging people to find/have roots, than to forcing them to own a house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse
specifically seniors on a "fixed income" will never vote to make capital improvements even if these could save their life. Contrast that to a building owned by someone who owns a lot of buildings and has access to capital who really could finance repairs that keep buildings safe and habitable.
One could make the case that homeownership is frequently a scam. Look at the 2008 crisis in the U.S. or similar developments that are ongoing in China. For a certain time, constantly rising house prices make life easy for many people, but eventually prices get too high and young people can't get started on the housing ladder. People owning their own houses is a major reason why people are stuck in economically depressed areas and can't afford to move to areas with opportunity.
It's also fashionable to complain about landlords in 2023. Frankly it pisses me off right now because I have been struggling to remove a tenant (in a second house on my farm) who has not been paying the rent for a long time and has a sense of entitlement as high as the sky.
> specifically seniors on a "fixed income" will never vote to make capital improvements even if these could save their life. Contrast that to a building owned by someone who owns a lot of buildings and has access to capital who really could finance repairs that keep buildings safe and habitable.
It's very similar situations in Poland (most people live in condos they own), and repairs and improvements are done all the time. Perhaps it's just a matter of wealth of the residents.
* but if I want to move, now I have to eat a $40k set of fees just to change houses. Fuck that.
* if I don't plan on staying somewhere for 10 years, it's just way easier to rent
* renting means outsourcing maintenance, property taxes, and other tasks
* to buy you need a lot of capital, and even if income is high you need spare cash; it may not be feasible.
For example I lived in Australia for 2 years. Why would I buy a house there? I also was in the USMC at one point and lived in California (among other places). Buying a house was a terrible idea since I had no idea if I'd be around, or get moved elsewhere. Was I gonna try to rent that, and chase down tenants while in Iraq? Hell no.
> Wouldn't most people be better off if they must buy a condo/house instead?
1) Some would; some wouldn't. Let's say I know I'm going to move in a year. Great, I sign a one year lease; when it's over I just walk away. But if I have to buy instead, I have to sell at the end of the year, which takes more time and effort (and an unpredictable amount of time), and which costs me 6% of the price of the house.
2) "They'd be better off" (economically) is not grounds to force them, even if true.
as long as you work in the city you can keep using the apartment and pay rent that would be used to renovate / maintain / build apartments.
once you are ready to retire or accumulated enough money you have the option to buy your own property outside of the city.
profit based property renting as a form of income in heavily populated areas should not be allowed, or at least it should be regulated.
B&B / hotels are allowed.
Your scheme also generates profit, but there's only one monopolistic landlord - the city.