Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 09, @01:38PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

There's a new bill before federal parliament calling for housing to be considered a fundamental human right.

The bill, introduced by independent federal parliamentarians Kylea Tink and David Pocock, would require the government to create a 10-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

One part of the bill states housing should be considered a fundamental human right for all Australians. Here's how this would work.

Since its election in 2022, the Albanese government has had to fight political battles to pass its housing policies.

This includes the Housing Australia Future Fund: a $10 billion fund to provide an annual $500 million for social and affordable rental housing. It passed the parliament last year.

There's also the "Help to Buy" shared equity scheme. Under this scheme, 10,000 households a year would be eligible for a government equity contribution of up to 40% of the purchase price of a new home. It's yet to pass the parliament.

But many in the community continue to struggle with unaffordable rents, barriers to home ownership and rising rates of homelessness.

Housing and homelessness problems are complex because they crossover different areas of policy and different levels of government. There are many agencies that do housing policy.

But so far, the government has not had a clear plan. Its election promise to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is still under development. And at the moment, it does not appear to be addressing important policy areas like tax and finance.

[...] Tink and Pocock have also taken up our research and turned it into the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill.

The bill would require the housing minister of the day to develop and implement a ten year National Housing and Homelessness Plan. This would mean taking a view of housing policy beyond three-year election cycles.

The legislation would also set some basic directions for the government's plan, including "ensuring that everyone in Australia has adequate housing," and "preventing and ending homelessness." This reflects the legislation's human rights-based approach.

The legislation would also require the housing minister to be collaborative and establish some new sources of information and advice for government. This includes a "consumer council," including people with experience of homelessness. This would operate alongside the existing National Housing Supply and Affordability Council: an independent group providing the government with expert advice. The consumer council would be able to escalate matters directly to the minister to ensure it's heard.

The existing government agency Housing Australia would be nominated as the lead agency assisting the minister with the plan. A new government officer, the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate, would independently investigate housing policy issues and monitor the progress against the plan. The housing minister would also be required to periodically report to parliament on progress.

At the end of the ten years, the minister would be required to review and develop a new plan.

Importantly, it would still be for the government of the day to decide what's in the plan. The legislation sets objectives and directions, but not policy details. The legislation does not say, for example, "thou shalt repeal negative gearing"! One government might devise a more market-orientated plan, while another might plan for greater non-market housing provision.

[...] The bill formally recognizes housing as a human right for two reasons.

First, it serves as the constitutional basis for the legislation. The right to adequate housing is a human right under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Australia ratified almost 50 years ago.

This brings it within the parliament's "external affairs" power. The parliament relied on this power and the human right to housing when it passed the original legislation establishing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (now Housing Australia). Basically, it gives the government the legal authority to make such a plan.

Secondly, an effective plan that's going to work across different policy areas and bring in the range of institutions needs a place to start. Human rights provides a way to organize the policy across all the different branches of government that need to be involved.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday July 09, @05:17PM (49 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Tuesday July 09, @05:17PM (#1363566)

    I'll tell you how it'll go: private owners will not offer properties for rent anymore, because rents will be capped, it will become exceedingly difficult to evict bad tenants and the state will have the right to seize the properties and put people in need of housing in them if they keep the properties empty.

    How do I know that? Because France has laws like that and it's happened to me. I rented my house for 20 years. The little money I made (not a lot, since rents are capped) was wasted on smart tenants who knew all the tricks to avoid paying rent without getting evicted.

    And finally, when I tried to sell it and it didn't sell rightaway in the summer, the state seized my house in the winter (which was empty since I was trying to sell it) and put homeless people in it. Do you know what homeless people who can pay for electricity or water do in a house that you give them? They camp out. They light fires in the living room to stay warm, and I'm not even going into the state of the bathrooms without running water. Do you think the state compensated me for the damage the people it put in my house did? Not a fucking centime.

    FInally I sold the house. Finally! Good riddance. If there's one country I'll never, EVER buy a property ever again - much less put it out for rent - it's France. The fucking place is totally anti-landlords. I'll take my money elsewhere thank you very much.

    That's what's going to happen in Australia.

    Meaning most rented properties will have to be built by the state. Which means the landlords in Australia will be the taxpayers. And if the taxpayers don't want to pay for social housing, well... tough cookie: they'll have to pay up anyway.

    The human right to housing sounds like a noble idea untill you drill down into the details. And then it doesn't seem so great anymore, for property owners or for the taxpayers, and ultimately for tenants too because nobody wants to live in social housing.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=1, Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 09, @06:02PM (19 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday July 09, @06:02PM (#1363573)

    >The fucking place is totally anti-landlords

    Is that an entirely bad thing? Of course, those who don't own their own property do need their housing managed / maintained somehow... if not rent seeking private sector, perhaps there could be a workable solution with government oversight. Don't like the government checking to make sure your electric outlets are safe and that your plumbing is working properly? Then suck it up and get your own home.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09, @08:32PM (18 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 09, @08:32PM (#1363583) Journal

      Is that an entirely bad thing?

      If you have to ask that, you are on the wrong side of the argument. There is nothing so terrible that someone doesn't gain from it and hence, makes it not entirely bad. Here. some politicians probably got reelected by being tough on landlords.

      Of course, those who don't own their own property do need their housing managed / maintained somehow... if not rent seeking private sector, perhaps there could be a workable solution with government oversight. Don't like the government checking to make sure your electric outlets are safe and that your plumbing is working properly? Then suck it up and get your own home.

      We call this regulatory thrashing. In the days of yore, this was covered by landlords. Now that the economic ecosystem has been wrecked, the band-aids come out. Government will be your landlord now.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 09, @08:56PM (17 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday July 09, @08:56PM (#1363585)

        >Government will be your landlord now.

        There are some who would prefer that.

        Most who would not prefer that would rather own their own residence anyway.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10, @07:43PM (16 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 10, @07:43PM (#1363687) Journal

          Government will be your landlord now.

          There are some who would prefer that.

          Of course they do. So what?

          Let's consider Rosco's story. He had a rental property for 20 years, dealing with renters who knew the tricks for avoiding rent payments. Then when he's trying to sell his property, the state steps in and puts random, destructive squatters in his house. Sure, if you're a renter looking to get out of paying rent, a homeless person who destroys anything they live in, a politician tough on landlords, or maybe a virtue-signaling, voting citizen who isn't directly threatened by the landlord apocalypse. In those cases, you might well prefer the current situation in France. But anyone else?

          I doubt you'd be so sanguine about a not entirely bad thing that only benefited billionaires or rapists at the expense of everyone else.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10, @08:09PM (15 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 10, @08:09PM (#1363691)

            >the state steps in and puts random, destructive squatters in his house

            They have altered the deal, pray they do not alter it further.

            The French more than anyone should be aware that blithely parading their superior wealth ("then let them eat cake!") has potentially dire consequences. While I believe that "landlording" is a sucker's game, more work than the income is worth, it is nonetheless widely perceived as fat-cats with "ownership" raking in money for nothing. If you're there making "passive income" on your real-estate holdings while the country is rioting in the streets for higher minimum wage, earlier retirement and all sorts of other social programs - do you think the writing might be on the wall? There are probably still some walls with spatter-patterns from the last time the aristocracy tested the people past their limits.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @01:04AM (14 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @01:04AM (#1363708) Journal

              The French more than anyone should be aware that blithely parading their superior wealth ("then let them eat cake!") has potentially dire consequences. While I believe that "landlording" is a sucker's game, more work than the income is worth, it is nonetheless widely perceived as fat-cats with "ownership" raking in money for nothing. If you're there making "passive income" on your real-estate holdings while the country is rioting in the streets for higher minimum wage, earlier retirement and all sorts of other social programs - do you think the writing might be on the wall? There are probably still some walls with spatter-patterns from the last time the aristocracy tested the people past their limits.

              Would Rosco agree with you that he's been blithely parading his superior wealth? Instead I think this a case where the narrative has once again outpaced reality.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11, @01:55AM (13 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 11, @01:55AM (#1363712)

                >Would Rosco agree with you that he's been blithely parading his superior wealth?

                Of course not, but a majority of French voters do.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @04:57AM (12 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @04:57AM (#1363731) Journal

                  Of course not, but a majority of French voters do.

                  We'll see if that majority stays a majority.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11, @12:09PM (11 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 11, @12:09PM (#1363750)

                    The pendulum always swings, but clearly, in France, it has swung far enough to guillotine landlord profitability.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @01:29PM (10 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @01:29PM (#1363755) Journal
                      In the meantime they can serve as a lesson to the rest of us.
                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11, @02:07PM (9 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 11, @02:07PM (#1363759)

                        The rest of us... landlords? What percentage of the population is landlords? What percentage of the population actively hates landlords?

                        I'm not saying the US should follow France closely in this change, France's swings to the Left are historically overly abrupt, sharp, and lead to a fair amount of chaos - but also social progress both in France and abroad after the chaos has settled.

                        The US has been slowly following France for over a century in this regard... yes, we are somewhat of a backward / retarded offspring of Europe in this regard, but historically we do follow them - even if we are laggy about it.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 12, @05:51AM (8 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 12, @05:51AM (#1363861) Journal

                          The rest of us... landlords?

                          You have in the past stated that you own your own home. That makes you your own landlord. Imagine if you had to deal with the risk of official squatters every time you moved to a new home. It's stupid policy even when the state is acting in good faith.

                          I'm not saying the US should follow France closely in this change, France's swings to the Left are historically overly abrupt, sharp, and lead to a fair amount of chaos - but also social progress both in France and abroad after the chaos has settled.

                          The US has been slowly following France for over a century in this regard... yes, we are somewhat of a backward / retarded offspring of Europe in this regard, but historically we do follow them - even if we are laggy about it.

                          Rather this shows an area where France is ridiculously lagging the US by centuries - the Third and Fourth Amendments. The US has a body of law against uncompensated seizure of property by the state with the core established over 200 years ago. It's not perfect, there's still a variety of well oiled exploits like zoning law, rent control, illegally legal asset seizure, etc, but at least when US-based governments do stuff this brazen, the issue can be settled in the courts.

                          Further, "social progress" sounds like yet another example of a phrase where the noun is neutered by the use of "social". Two examples: zero sum strategies involving wealth redistribution and social programs with built in infinite growth assumptions (particularly public pensions where several workers are required to support a retiree). But I guess I shouldn't be surprised to get so many social wood [soylentnews.org] arguments here.

                          Here's my take on all that. In a normal market situation (with regulation against fraud, use of force, etc), landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements. Every time the state throws bullshit into these relationships, it harms them. Here, typically by reducing the supply of rental property. Somehow that helps the homeless. Needless to say, I'm not buying it.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 12, @12:23PM (7 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday July 12, @12:23PM (#1363869)

                            > That makes you your own landlord.

                            Stretching far for even you.

                            > Imagine if you had to deal with the risk of official squatters every time you moved to a new home. It's stupid policy even when the state is acting in good faith.

                            Well, then, I won't be buying any rentals with squatters in them, just like the rental I bid on (to convert for personal ownership use) after, and only after, the squatters had been evicted.

                            > at least when US-based governments do stuff this brazen, the issue can be settled in the courts.

                            Unless it's eminent domain, or pushing out existing land use with overdevelopment: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/16/1236266122/florida-man-refused-sell-home-developer-coral-gables [npr.org]

                            > uncompensated seizure of property by the state

                            Unless you're accused of drug possession, or harassment of protected wildlife, or any other number of offences which allow your property to be seized and auctioned.

                            > zero sum strategies involving wealth redistribution

                            There you are again, focused on money like the only meaningful measure of it is the grand total. Distribution matters. Giving every waitress in America a 100% salary increase is meaningless if there are still the same number of waitresses working - the job is the same, the hours worked are the same, oh, but now they're getting more pay and maybe they can afford to pay their car mechanic and plumber? Only if the car mechanic and plumber don't also get raises.

                            The meaningful measure of wealth is in its distribution, relative levels, the absolute numbers are meaningless.

                            > landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements

                            Like hell they do. The one time I rented a house for the family there was a "standard contract" that all landlords within 50 miles of my job used, it was written by the landlords and very tenant unfriendly. Sure, we could have refused to rent anything at all and the four of us could have tried to live in the pickup truck, maybe on one of the unused floors of my office's parking garage? Not.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13, @05:18AM (6 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 13, @05:18AM (#1363955) Journal

                              > That makes you your own landlord.

                              Stretching far for even you.

                              I forget that we have to set the evil bit first. /sarc

                              Well, then, I won't be buying any rentals with squatters in them, just like the rental I bid on (to convert for personal ownership use) after, and only after, the squatters had been evicted.

                              Rosco didn't do that either. But it happened just the same - because the state put them there.

                              The meaningful measure of wealth is in its distribution, relative levels, the absolute numbers are meaningless.

                              The obvious rebuttal is what happens when everyone has the same wealth - but it's not enough to feed themselves? Absolute numbers that are a measure of what needs and wants can be provided are far more meaningful than relative levels that can be arbitrarily calibrated to generate grievance.

                              There you are again, focused on money like the only meaningful measure of it is the grand total. Distribution matters. Giving every waitress in America a 100% salary increase is meaningless if there are still the same number of waitresses working - the job is the same, the hours worked are the same, oh, but now they're getting more pay and maybe they can afford to pay their car mechanic and plumber? Only if the car mechanic and plumber don't also get raises.

                              I didn't mention money even once (aside from quoting someone at one point who did use the term "money"). You've mentioned it several times. The person with the erroneous focus on money is not me.

                              > landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements

                              Like hell they do. The one time I rented a house for the family there was a "standard contract" that all landlords within 50 miles of my job used, it was written by the landlords and very tenant unfriendly. Sure, we could have refused to rent anything at all and the four of us could have tried to live in the pickup truck, maybe on one of the unused floors of my office's parking garage? Not.

                              You just did in the above example. And I bet if we go through your life, we find several other times you've done the same.

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 13, @06:58PM (4 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday July 13, @06:58PM (#1363998)

                                >>Well, then, I won't be buying any rentals with squatters in them, just like the rental I bid on (to convert for personal ownership use) after, and only after, the squatters had been evicted.

                                >Rosco didn't do that either. But it happened just the same - because the state put them there.

                                No, Rosco had an "extra house" in France, and these recent changes in French laws and enforcement mean that many people like Rosco will be divesting of that dubious asset - possibly buying in Florida: https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-homeowners-fight-squatters-new-law-ends-scam-desantis-says [fox35orlando.com] Note, I'm not exactly cheering DeSantis on, just pointing out: different conditions in different countries. Just like you might purchase an "extra house" for cheap in South Sudan, but you probably wouldn't want to.

                                >>The meaningful measure of wealth is in its distribution, relative levels, the absolute numbers are meaningless.

                                >The obvious rebuttal is what happens when everyone has the same wealth - but it's not enough to feed themselves?

                                Are we anywhere near such a situation? I mean, when ADM gives up growing food for profit and nobody else wants to work the fields, maybe - but that's far off fantasy at this point in time.

                                >Absolute numbers that are a measure of what needs and wants can be provided are far more meaningful than relative levels that can be arbitrarily calibrated to generate grievance.

                                Nothing arbitrary about the top 2% having a net worth 12x (and higher than) the median and 50% of all wealth being controlled by the top 2.5%.

                                >>There you are again, focused on money like the only meaningful measure of it is the grand total. Distribution matters. Giving every waitress in America a 100% salary increase is meaningless if there are still the same number of waitresses working - the job is the same, the hours worked are the same, oh, but now they're getting more pay and maybe they can afford to pay their car mechanic and plumber? Only if the car mechanic and plumber don't also get raises.

                                >I didn't mention money even once (aside from quoting someone at one point who did use the term "money"). You've mentioned it several times. The person with the erroneous focus on money is not me.

                                Oh, I think you did even without using the word. Look at the logic behind your statements.

                                >>> landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements

                                >>Like hell they do. The one time I rented a house for the family there was a "standard contract" that all landlords within 50 miles of my job used, it was written by the landlords and very tenant unfriendly. Sure, we could have refused to rent anything at all and the four of us could have tried to live in the pickup truck, maybe on one of the unused floors of my office's parking garage? Not.

                                >You just did in the above example. And I bet if we go through your life, we find several other times you've done the same.

                                Laid off from a 12 year job with my wife 4 months pregnant, out of work looking for 4 months finding nothing within a 300 mile radius, finally land a job with benefits in Houston - where exactly was my negotiating power with the rental market there? Take it or leave it is not a negotiation. Taking such an offer is not a mutual agreement, it is a necessity.

                                When I put a gun to your head and demand you sign a quit-claim deed to your home, does your signature represent mutual agreement between us?

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday July 14, @06:37AM (3 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 14, @06:37AM (#1364050) Journal

                                  No, Rosco had an "extra house" in France, and these recent changes in French laws and enforcement mean that many people like Rosco will be divesting of that dubious asset - possibly buying in Florida: https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-homeowners-fight-squatters-new-law-ends-scam-desantis-says [fox35orlando.com] [fox35orlando.com] Note, I'm not exactly cheering DeSantis on, just pointing out: different conditions in different countries. Just like you might purchase an "extra house" for cheap in South Sudan, but you probably wouldn't want to.

                                  It wasn't dubious before the state made it so. Funny how the social progress of France makes Florida with all its glaring drawbacks such an attractive investment option for actual human beings.

                                  Are we anywhere near such a situation? I mean, when ADM gives up growing food for profit and nobody else wants to work the fields, maybe - but that's far off fantasy at this point in time.

                                  We aren't need such a situation where we can't feed ourselves because we aren't near a situation where relative wealth is considered more important than absolute wealth.

                                  Nothing arbitrary about the top 2% having a net worth 12x (and higher than) the median and 50% of all wealth being controlled by the top 2.5%.

                                  It's clearly irrelevant to your argument what numbers you use. The top x% will have net worth higher than y% people who don't bother to collect wealth at all. Also you're clearly ignoring wealth from future earning power which is the classic part of wealth traditionally ignored by the broken measures of wealth today.

                                  I didn't mention money even once (aside from quoting someone at one point who did use the term "money"). You've mentioned it several times. The person with the erroneous focus on money is not me.

                                  Oh, I think you did even without using the word. Look at the logic behind your statements.

                                  I do look at my logic and I'm just not interested in your straw man building.

                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14, @11:52AM (2 children)

                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 14, @11:52AM (#1364067)

                                    My ancestors were successful farmers in Tennessee in the early 1800s, they also held significant value in dubious assets which the government forced them to divest, in the 1860s. Many of them diversified into the ship building industry, one descendant later became Secretary of the Navy. For better or worse, (mostly worse) my direct ancestor on that side became a school teacher, then died of tuberculosis around age 30.

                                    --
                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14, @03:43PM (1 child)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 14, @03:43PM (#1364100) Journal
                                      Mine were farmers, shipbuilders, and fishermen in New England with some poor Texas or Louisiana mixed in there via a Denmark immigrant. Not much opportunity for slavery except perhaps in the Viking era?
                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14, @02:09PM

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 14, @02:09PM (#1364086)

                                >The obvious rebuttal is what happens when everyone has the same wealth - but it's not enough to feed themselves?

                                Meanwhile: Making Ends Meet: Nearly half of Florida families can't afford expenses - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtfLor0Eq0w [youtube.com]

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by namefags_are_jerks on Wednesday July 10, @02:03AM

    by namefags_are_jerks (17638) on Wednesday July 10, @02:03AM (#1363606)

    It's been proposed by two Independent MPs. Omae wa mou shindeiru.

    Note that Australia's generally in a slight majority "Liberal Party" (not to be confused with the actual meaning of the word) very much believe in "The Right To Make Capital". If the non-Conservatives push this, it'll just be them winning election after election on being "anti-Communist" and 'giving the right to Real Australians With Actual Jobs to own two Ford Rangers paid for by their tenants'. It was their winning tactic for almost all the 20th century. I can't see Labor supporting the bill for that reason.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 10, @03:16AM (27 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 10, @03:16AM (#1363608) Journal

    private owners will not offer properties for rent anymore

    Very few can afford not to rent their properties, the Ozzie banks want their mortgage paid with around/over 8% interest today.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday July 10, @12:58PM (26 children)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Wednesday July 10, @12:58PM (#1363642)

      Very few can afford not to rent their properties

      When the choice is between not earning anything because you don't put the property up for rent (i.e. losing money) or earning rents that are capped and eventually get overtaken by inflation, or you have to pay for damage done by tenants - not to mention a lawyer to have them thrown out (i.e. losing even more money), then you choose the lesser evil. Or you decide to live in the property. Or you sell the property yourself. But you sure as hell don't want to deal with tenancies anymore.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10, @07:16PM (25 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 10, @07:16PM (#1363683)

        Being a landlord is a job. It's a risk-reward situation plain and simple. You had some excess capital, you converted it to rental property, you take a risk that the property won't rent, you take a risk that the renters won't pay, you take a risk that the renters will damage the property more than usual, you take a risk for everything your insurance doesn't cover, and you give away your profits for every bit of insurance you purchase. Real-estate values don't only go up, anymore. There's a risk your equity will decline, there's a risk your financing will become more expensive... if you hire a manager to deal with the day to day operations, not only are you giving away profits to the manager but you are taking a risk that the manager will do a poor job costing you far more than their salary.

        If all that risk is too much for you, don't invest in rental property.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday July 10, @07:45PM (24 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 10, @07:45PM (#1363688) Journal

          Being a landlord is a job.

          It's not the state's duty to make a job suck or to increase the risk and cost of the job.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10, @08:11PM (17 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 10, @08:11PM (#1363692)

            >>Being a landlord is a job.

            >It's not the state's duty to make a job suck or to increase the risk and cost of the job.

            Neither is it the state's job to coddle all the poor helpless landlords who can't deal with the changing social climate. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't make money "landlording" find another job for yourself and your capital.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @12:53AM (16 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @12:53AM (#1363707) Journal

              Neither is it the state's job to coddle all the poor helpless landlords who can't deal with the changing social climate. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't make money "landlording" find another job for yourself and your capital.

              I typically consider it the state's job to uphold laws of the land, such as property rights. Having said that, you've already indicated an unintended consequence. If renting French property has this sort of drawback, then less people will bother - after all Rosco left the market. I get that there's a bunch of people of the opinion that France doesn't need landlords. Those people are insane and haven't thought through the consequences. I think we're already seeing some of that in the growth of the far right faction in recent years.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11, @01:53AM (15 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 11, @01:53AM (#1363711)

                >I think we're already seeing some of that in the growth of the far right faction in recent years.

                Current election cycle notwithstanding?

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @04:29AM (14 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @04:29AM (#1363726) Journal

                  Current election cycle notwithstanding?

                  Given that the RN (Rassemblement National) and allies went from 89 seats in the French National Assembly to 125 [msn.com], that would be unwise. But then again, would the RN being in charge be an "entirely bad thing"? Eh, Joe?

                  If you can't be bothered to understand why not entirely bad things happen, then they happen more often.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11, @12:07PM (13 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 11, @12:07PM (#1363748)

                    Change doesn't happen all at once, but there is a clear trend in France recently:

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/world/europe/france-election-maps.html [nytimes.com]

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13, @05:29AM (12 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 13, @05:29AM (#1363957) Journal
                      What was there supposed to be in that paywalled story? I already noted a real trend. Consider that the RN went from 8 seats in 2017 to 125 seats now. Your trend is what?
                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 13, @06:38PM (11 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday July 13, @06:38PM (#1363994)

                        Funny, wasn't paywalled to me, and I sure as hell don't subscribe.

                        Basically, the "far left" exceeds the "far right" by a significant margin in France, even after Marcon's bone headed snap elections which decimated his centrist party's influence.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14, @06:24AM (10 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 14, @06:24AM (#1364049) Journal

                          Basically, the "far left" exceeds the "far right" by a significant margin in France, even after Marcon's bone headed snap elections which decimated his centrist party's influence.

                          You are merely making a comment about the present state - no trend. If we look at that trend instead, we see that the significant margin has shrunk significantly over recent years.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14, @11:44AM (9 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 14, @11:44AM (#1364066)

                            Just like global population will peak "some time this century" unless it doesn't, according to the best predictions.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14, @03:30PM (8 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 14, @03:30PM (#1364099) Journal

                              Just like global population will peak "some time this century" unless it doesn't

                              Indeed. I think a few decades from now will be very educational. I don't see actual negative global population growth until some point around 2060-2100. But it will become increasingly obvious that the narrative of uncontrolled population growth is obsolete.

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14, @08:38PM (7 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 14, @08:38PM (#1364151)

                                Except that 8 billion people livin' 1980s US large is already catastrophic. And we're adding all kinds of energy usage like AI that apparently needs nuclear power to feed its needs..

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16, @05:52PM (6 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 16, @05:52PM (#1364463) Journal
                                  The hype is catastrophic, the reality falls far short. This reminds me of the narrative of backsliding by climate deniers - typically going through half a dozen transitions from climate change isn't happening to it's happening but no big deal. Here, we've abandoned the Population Bomb narrative of linear growth to claim without a shred of evidence that merely stable, fully developed world population isn't sustainable for reasons. When that narrative fails in a few decades, I imagine everyone will have moved on to the moral barrenness and other intangible woo. This, the debate will be settled.
                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 16, @07:47PM (5 children)

                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday July 16, @07:47PM (#1364475)

                                    Well, everything is a matter of taste... h. sapiens could very well manage through to a bug-paste utopia of 20 billion people with fuck-all for biodiversity.

                                    I prefer how things were when we had seals in the Caribbean... not so very long ago.

                                    --
                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16, @10:54PM (4 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 16, @10:54PM (#1364492) Journal

                                      Well, everything is a matter of taste...

                                      Not reality.

                                      h. sapiens could very well manage through to a bug-paste utopia of 20 billion people with fuck-all for biodiversity.

                                      Why I prefer 8 billion developed world humans rather than 20 billion BPU enthusiasts. But please pray continue with all the nightmare scenarios that would happen, if we were to listen to JoeMerchant.

                                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 17, @12:02AM (3 children)

                                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 17, @12:02AM (#1364506)

                                        We are at 8 now, peak is predicted "some time this century". 20 is as good a guess as any. More developed (consumptive per capital) is a virtual certainty, whether via peaceful progress or the chaos of war. Surprisingly few people die in wars

                                        --
                                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17, @12:55AM (2 children)

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 17, @12:55AM (#1364512) Journal

                                          20 is as good a guess as any.

                                          Unless, of course, you want to guess better. Then lower is better.

                                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 17, @01:40AM (1 child)

                                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 17, @01:40AM (#1364517)

                                            Optimistic thinking doesn't have influence reality.

                                            --
                                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17, @02:14AM

                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 17, @02:14AM (#1364523) Journal

                                              Optimistic thinking doesn't have influence reality.

                                              Sure, but reality does influence itself.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11, @01:45AM (5 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @01:45AM (#1363710) Journal

            Not state job to make a job easier, either. That is, unless is a state for landlords, tenants be damn'd.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @04:33AM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @04:33AM (#1363727) Journal

              Not state job to make a job easier, either.

              Is that a problem here? The crazy situation where some homeless people were stuffed in Rosco's rental property without his permission and then the state refused to compensate for damage caused is not a case of the state merely merely refusing to make the job easier.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11, @06:40AM (3 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @06:40AM (#1363736) Journal

                The crazy situation where some homeless people were stuffed in Rosco's rental property without his permission

                The laws allowing the state to do that were public, weren't they?

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11, @06:34PM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @06:34PM (#1363800) Journal
                  Meaning? While I have ranted on the value of rule of law, it's not the important thing here. Protection from state machination ranks pretty high up there too.

                  Consider this hypothetical scenario: a real estate mogul teams up with the locals to pack vacant real estate in valuable locations with a team of homeless saboteurs. Once the place is trashed, buy at a discount and tear it down. Build new rental property with a much higher cap than what was there before (possibly with some help from those same locals)and sell it to a new owner.

                  Lather, rinse, repeat.
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11, @10:17PM (1 child)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11, @10:17PM (#1363824) Journal

                    Meaning? While I have ranted on the value of rule of law, it's not the important thing here.

                    Meaning: information contributing to the risk of being a lessor in France was known in advance. The important thing is one is not excused based on the "I didn't know the law" argument.

                    Protection from state machination ranks pretty high up there too.

                    France has a particular flavor of welfare state [wikipedia.org] and this flavor goes back to 1830.
                    This flavor may drive you ranting, but your rant is inconsequential, as you aren't a French citizen.

                    Consider this hypothetical scenario:

                    I'll consider it when/if I'll buy a property in France. Until then, I have better things to do.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday July 12, @04:35AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 12, @04:35AM (#1363858) Journal

                      France has a particular flavor of welfare state [wikipedia.org] and this flavor goes back to 1830. This flavor may drive you ranting, but your rant is inconsequential, as you aren't a French citizen.

                      I'm fine with them being an educational moment for the rest of us. But to turn one's back on that lesson and copycat them?

                      I'll consider it when/if I'll buy a property in France. Until then, I have better things to do.

                      Such as make that empty pretense? I doubt you had a better thing to do when you wrote that post!