68
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
68 points (100.0% liked)
Ontario
3077 readers
31 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
running any business comes with risk. “help” should go to the tenant before the business. if a landlord cant afford a business then they should quit and get a normal job instead of being a piece of shit human.
landlords should not exist, to begin with. they are garbage people.
Landlords are not philanthropists. You are not going to find a big group of homeowners who want to rent at a loss out of the goodness of their own hearts.
I would love if the government took strong measures to encourage home ownership and discourage treating real estate as an investment. Really, I would. But that will take many years of hard work and economics PhDs to concoct a plan that works. So, until we find a government with the balls to do that for real, we have to understand that dealing with landlords in a realistic way is a necessary evil.
Because if you nuke rentals without first ensuring people can afford to buy, all you'll accomplish is to create a mass housing shortage worse than you've ever seen.
Saying you want real estate to not be treated like an investment is a pipe dream. It is the most expensive purchase most people will ever make - looking at it without a financial lense is a terrible idea!
Fortunately, what you want has a straightforward solution, and requires few if any economics phds. Because an economist already solved the problem a long time ago. Henry George noted that landlords provided a valuable service to people by building and maintaining housing - but that the value of the land that their building was built on (which made up the bulk of the reason people were willing to pay their rent) was made by the community. A 300 sqft studio in Boston rents for more than a 2000sqft house in bumfuck Nebraska because it is in Boston. The public infrastructure, the businesses, the other peoples homes, the parks, the universities - all these things contribute to the value of that studio in a way the landlord had nothing to do with.
The land itself has value depending on where it is, and we should not let landlords capture this value. Instead, it should be returned to the community, which is the source of the value in the first place. Hence, George proposed issueing a tax on land values, such that landlords would be unable to profit on the value of land itself. Instead, they would be required to earn value from the land by building and maintaining something of worth on it. And when something of worth is built, this improves the community further!
I highly recommend looking into Georgism.
This is the first time I've ever actually intentionally saved a comment on Lemmy or Reddit.