[kubb]

Do you think there exists a political option that will give more rights to the renters?

Do you think there's a correlation between having more leisure time (living from rent) and having more ability to do politics?

Do you think blaming the renters for not voting is the most constructive way of going forward, or does it reinforce the status quo?

[pochekailov]

Q1: Yes, there is. Once a professional politician sees more activity from renters, they will include the renter's interests into their agenda

Q2: Yes, obviously there is a positive correlation. This is exactly why renters need to fight: stakes are against them. Current status quo is in favor of homeowners; it will not be possible to change it while being passive. Renters and homeowners have conflict of interests, there is inevitable fight.

Q3: I think blaming is the call for fight. If renters want better deal, they need to fight. Is it most constructive? I don't know, this is the best I can come up with. Does it reinforces the status quo? No, I think inactivity reinforces it.

[gitrog]

I'm sorry but your answer to Q1 is extremely naive. There is no way that activity from renters will even remotely approach the power of those who own property in politics. The latter group can lobby and make campaign donations, the former can't exactly...

The best thing you'll get is a campaign promise to do something about it, but not much action. The only way something will actually be done about it is if the effects of it become economically catastrophic or people start rioting en masse.

[JumpCrisscross]

> no way that activity from renters will even remotely approach the power of those who own property in politics

Can speak to New York politics. Tenants' associations have massive sway. I've canvassed elections where a single building's tenants' association could predictably swing the outcome.

They also ally with developers when advantageous, e.g. to continue building housing stock. (Their divergent interests explain much of our affordable housing policies' idiosyncrasies.) This combination of activism and pragmatism beats the well-funded candidate every time in local politics because their elections are decided by margins of hundreds or even tens of votes.

> latter group can lobby and make campaign donations, the former can't exactly

Donations, at the local level, are a threat to incumbents through enabling primary challengers. And tenants' associations absolutely lobby. The problem is renters in most cities are some combination of disorganized, disengaged and/or ideological to a dogmatic degree.

[bthater]

The latter group can unionize like the tenants union of Washington[1]. Unions can lobby on the behalf of their members and make campaign donations based on their dues. While their power may not be as great as the amount of individual homeowners who can independently donate a union is a good mechanism here for renters to advocate for affordable housing. Here in Seattle there are multiple unions that have lobbied to local city council members for increased tenants rights such as 6 month notice for increase in rent[2]. _Things_ are being done about the problem at the local level across the country through unionization of renters and workers.

[1]: https://tenantsunion.org/ [2]: https://council.seattle.gov/2021/09/27/sawant-congratulates-...

[banannaise]

Local politicians will often discount or ignore the opinions of people they see as renters rather than homeowners, in part because when a renter moves, they often leave the district.

I saw this recently in a fight over parking regulations - all the homeowners wanted strictly regulated street parking in neighborhoods, but none of the renters did. Both parties showed up to the council meeting discussing the regulation. Guess who won? Adding insult to injury, existing laws give owners a process for obtaining extra parking passes for guests, while renters get no such option and need to take a bunch of documents to city hall to get a pass when they move in. For street parking.

[nopenopenopeno]

You have an incredibly naive impression of representative democracy and capitalist political economy. US politicians serve the rich, not only because they are the rich but also because they need the donations to even be able to run. This isn’t a mere hiccup but rather the entire point of the design.

[pochekailov]

Yes, in my experience, the naïve interpretation is right 80% of time and it is always best to start from a naïve explanation of a process.

US politicians serve the rich only because they think that donations will help them win. Make the donations irrelevant - "rich" will loose the political power. How to make the donations irrelevant - go to vote, especially if you are poor and powerless. Convince your friends to vote. And not for a president, but for a local mayor, city council, judge etc.