[crote]

Landlords don't provide housing, property developers do.

Most people who currently rent don't want landlord. You already make that point yourself: the alternative for them is being homeless, because they are unable to buy due to high housing prices and restrictions on getting mortgages.

In many cases the landlord are making boatloads of money, simply by being the middleman between tenant and bank. They are not the selfless charities you are making them out to be.

[twblalock]

Most landlords actually spend more than they make, and they hope the long-term appreciation on the property will make up for the expenses.

Property developers only build things because they know they can rent them out directly or sell them to landlords who will. None of this exists without a market that will demand it.

[29083011397778]

We still don't need landlords. Water is a requirement, so my government has built out the infrastructure, and provides the service at near-cost. Same with power, insurance, licensing for firearms and motor vehicles, public transit, and more.

Why is housing different in your mind? Or is this an American view that everything must be a "free" market? Note that the government doesn't need to be the sole provider of housing, but allowing the government to compete with private industry hardly seems unreasonable.

[twblalock]

If the government provided your housing, the government would be your landlord.

Is that really preferable to your landlord being an individual you can sue in court?

There is no world without landlords.

[piva00]

> If the government provided your housing, the government would be your landlord.

> Is that really preferable to your landlord being an individual you can sue in court?

Yes, in the country I live in that's much more preferable than to have an individual I can sue. Public housing was the scheme that afforded most people in this country with their first dwelling, and the government in the 1950-1960s publicly incentivised the construction of 1 million dwellings.

So yes to your question, I prefer if I have the option to rent an apartment from my government than from an individual, thank you very much.

[defrost]

If a state housing commission fails to deliver contracted services then of course they can be taken to court - they are far less likely to dodge and avoid in the manner a truly bad individual landlord can.

They're also there to provide housing services to all including the most needy that many landlords might reject.

See (for example): https://www.housing.wa.gov.au

[twblalock]

See also (for example) all of the abuses of governments ever.

Do you really want to be a slave, and for all of your descendants to be slaves?

Government ownership of housing is the worst solution.

[defrost]

It's not government ownership of housing here, it's a mixture of private ownership of privately owned housing, private ownership of rental housing, and a choice by the two million+ free citizens of the state to invest some of their collective investment money in a managed state housing commision to provide housing to parts of the convential rental market and to the otherwise unserviced poorer end of the rental market as a means of addressing what would otherwise be a large homelessness issue.

It's a smart investment that saves on policing costs and reduces crime .. that other wise the same citizens would have to pay for and live with.

Do try and think more broadly and out of the box. The slavery stuff is just ridiculous (you're US, right?).

[jjav]

> Landlords don't provide housing, property developers do.

With rare exceptions, developers want nothing to do with owning the properties they build. They want to finish the build and get those properties off their books and close the contruction loans and move on.

So somone has to own the property after build is complete.

[badpun]

Developers only provide a service of constructing a house on a plot of land. Whereas landlords actually provide the resources (capital) required to build it.

[twblalock]

What world do you live in where this is the case? Development is usually speculative and not done with prior investment by potential landlords.

[badpun]

Yes, of course - but ultimately, it's the landlords who park the capital for many decades in the properties, and not the developers. So, it's the landlords' capital which makes development possible in the first place. Developers are just providing a service. Well, that's not entirely fair, as they're also assuming a bit of risk on themselves - if they miscalculate the investment, or conditions change negatively before they sell, they'll end up holding the bag. But, majority of risk is on the landlords' side, as they hold the property for decades.