Reason I’m asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say “city” think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn’t seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I’m not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don’t overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.
I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don’t see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.
Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the “landlords are bad” sentinment?
The problem with this theory is that it’s wrong across the board.
Take a look at houses on realtor dot com or the like… they show estimated mortgage and also estimated rental value. Single family homes typically rent for far less than a new mortgage on the same property, partly because housing prices are so inflated and partly because as you pointed out, someone who got a mortgage on a property 10 years ago who is renting it out now may be renting it out based on the cost of ownership 10 years ago.
Secondly, your conclusion doesn’t follow even if your premise was correct.
Let’s pretend sfh rental prices were higher than the cost of a new mortgage on the same property. How would that then translate to ‘people who can only afford to rent shouldn’t be allowed the dignity of living in a sfh and instead should have no other option but to live in a shared housing environment… how does that follow? How could you possibly think the answer is an increased limitation on what people can rent?
The real solution is getting rid of corporate ownership of more than say maybe 20 properties at a time.
I would certainly prefer having hundreds of thousands of small time landlords with 5 or 10 properties, as opposed to dozens of billionaire corporation who each own tens of thousands of properties… be they sfh or condos or whatever is irrelevant.
Its wrong in the current market, yep. But if we didnt have inflated housing from various factors including parasites and empty housing from those billionaire corps and small time landlords, things would be generally more affordable across the board like they were in the past.
With the bar for ownership lower, that rental line shifts too. And suddenly the concept of “starter homes” is back on the menu like it was only a few years ago. And maybe we could get some smaller homes being built again to meet that demand.
Last thing i wanna say is that specific rental options don’t have to be shitty. I was lucky to have snuck my early adulthood right into this mess as it formed. I saved up for my starter house (which i am now stuck in seemingly forever due to this market, but i know i am also lucky) by renting, but i rented an 1000 sqft private entry apartment with good quality. I felt plenty dignified in there. And there are options even better of course. Some people only want to rent forever afterall. Townhomes in particular are more suited for that style of renting. Nothing against that. But also, sardine packed buildings have their place. If someone is that rough off, i’d assume they prefer that to being on the streets. The issue is even those buildings have been royally fucked by today’s market. Those 500sqft apartments shouldn’t cost more than my current mortgage, but they do, and that’s insanity.