65
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 Sep 2023
65 points (90.1% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26903 readers
1580 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
At first glance, this just sounds like a "keep renters out because they're bad for the existing owners' property values" (as well as being on average younger, less wealthy, etc.) policy.
The same kind of reasoning is often used as a pretense to block construction and perpetuate the existing shortage. Pure self-interest masquerading as a good cause.
Well you have it completely wrong. The language was carefully crafted by the lawyer to exclude predatory corporate renters, not all renting. We have quite a few renters in the neighborhood, and if someone meets certain criteria (living in the neighborhood long enough, and other special circumstances) they are allowed to rent.
But I'm sure you'll find some way to twist this too, so you can keep your moral superiority hard-on going.
That's not what the word predatory means.
Usually that has to do with things like pricing (both initially and any future increases), handling of maintenance, problems, and of things like late payments, etc.
You're looking at it once again purely through the lens of how it affects the existing owners. For example an existing long term owner in the area would not be considered predatory based on your criteria no matter how much price gouging they engage in.
Once again you have no clue what you're talking about. I've seen how these scumbag corporate landlords operate and I don't need a lesson on what predatory means. You're projecting what you think our motivations are with zero context or knowledge about me or my neighbors. You either have some weird political axe to grind here or you're just another pedantic knowitall keyboard warrior.
I don't generally care for HOAs, and you're right that rules shouldn't be made just to protect existing owners' property value.
A relatively new issue has been people buying houses to rent as airbnb/vrbo, which takes properties out of the available inventory for long term living, and raises the overall cost floor. Another one is big buyers like Zillow vacuuming up inventory and then algorithmically extracting more money when they sell, which also hurts the average person. Not sure if these issues were the primary driver in this case, but as described sounds like this HOA change would help.