I don't agree with the "socialist loser" bit; but here are just some of the ways the proposed approach fails, based on things we have already tried:
People don't like paying rent for property other people own. That doesn't just apply to small-time owners, it applies to the Government, the Property Managers, Big Brother, or whomever else is the owner instead of the occupier. This will be seen as no different to renting.
You might think that the above problem will be lessened if the occupier either: 1) pays less rent, or 2) has some say in the governing body. This won't happen. Public housing residents in Australia pay less rent; they still hate it (for the most part). Giving people a say in the governing body will be seen as a chore, not a benefit.
Property that somebody else owns are regularly treated like crap because the occupiers don't care; it's someone else's problem. (Owner-occupiers will also treat their own property like crap; but not as commonly.) Apartment buildings with high rental rates frequently have issues with bad-behaving residents actually damaging the property. The renters don't care; if they damage the place to the point where even they don't find it liveable, they'll just move. Public housing has similar problems. The government body responsible has to fix any damage; so residents will deliberately break things and just call to get it fixed. If there are punitive measures; they'll say it was an accident (and there's no contrary proof...).
The real solution to housing affordability is to reduce demand or increase supply. For example, you could: discourage investor ownership, or do what a number of developers here did accidentally: build "too many" new properties.
All of that said, public housing has a number of benefits in addition to its problems. I'm not advocating getting rid of it.
Unless they really thrash it, their holding deposit should generally cover it, especially if it's a months worth of rent. It's quite amusing listening to people complain the evil landlord wouldn't give them back their holding deposit after they let the property fall into dereliction.
My current housing is a perfect example of how private versus rental properties are treated. It was originally built in five identical lots. They're in the same neighborhood, on the same street, but not interconnected within themselves. Two of the lots were made into Condos: sold to owners. Three of the lots were made into apartments to be rented. The difference in upkeep between the two is staggering. The condos are reasonably nice. the apartments always look like they need some work. Public areas in the con
"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them"
- Heisenberg
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:1, Troll)
Move in & pay rent...
Tried & failed, more socialist loser think.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:2)
I don't agree with the "socialist loser" bit; but here are just some of the ways the proposed approach fails, based on things we have already tried:
People don't like paying rent for property other people own. That doesn't just apply to small-time owners, it applies to the Government, the Property Managers, Big Brother, or whomever else is the owner instead of the occupier. This will be seen as no different to renting.
You might think that the above problem will be lessened if the occupier either: 1) pays less rent, or 2) has some say in the governing body. This won't happen. Public housing residents in Australia pay less rent; they still hate it (for the most part). Giving people a say in the governing body will be seen as a chore, not a benefit.
Property that somebody else owns are regularly treated like crap because the occupiers don't care; it's someone else's problem. (Owner-occupiers will also treat their own property like crap; but not as commonly.) Apartment buildings with high rental rates frequently have issues with bad-behaving residents actually damaging the property. The renters don't care; if they damage the place to the point where even they don't find it liveable, they'll just move. Public housing has similar problems. The government body responsible has to fix any damage; so residents will deliberately break things and just call to get it fixed. If there are punitive measures; they'll say it was an accident (and there's no contrary proof...).
The real solution to housing affordability is to reduce demand or increase supply. For example, you could: discourage investor ownership, or do what a number of developers here did accidentally: build "too many" new properties.
All of that said, public housing has a number of benefits in addition to its problems. I'm not advocating getting rid of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they really thrash it, their holding deposit should generally cover it, especially if it's a months worth of rent. It's quite amusing listening to people complain the evil landlord wouldn't give them back their holding deposit after they let the property fall into dereliction.
They care then, but at that point it's to late.
Re: (Score:2)
And then, this is the standard solution in European cities and most of your negative points do not really apply. This is a cultural problem.
Re: (Score:2)
My current housing is a perfect example of how private versus rental properties are treated. It was originally built in five identical lots. They're in the same neighborhood, on the same street, but not interconnected within themselves.
Two of the lots were made into Condos: sold to owners. Three of the lots were made into apartments to be rented.
The difference in upkeep between the two is staggering. The condos are reasonably nice. the apartments always look like they need some work. Public areas in the con