“some family’s backyard”? did you read the article? This was a big mansion somewhere where famous people live. and they can’t evict the person because they’re lacking the permits for the rental. and it all started because they didn’t get the house in proper shape.
so yeah, fuckem
It’s a guest house, in their yard. Yes I understand that yard is probably larger than most, but the definition doesn’t change just because it’s a rich neighborhood. And the point is this isn’t some house bought in some working-class neighborhood to make money off rentals while driving up prices and gentrifying the area, it’s a guest house on a property the family already owns and lives on. Hence why the “late stage capitalism” tag seems like a bit of a stretch.
Interesting that lacking a rental permit is somehow grounds for continuing to have someone living on the property rather than further grounds for eviction. I wonder if you’d apply the same logic to a room you listed on AirBnB to make some extra money off unused space without researching permits requirements.
here’s the thing: in the past i have used couchsurfing to house people. i don’t intend to make “extra money” off of people needing a roof over their head.
So it’s on to live on a person’s property without paying? It’s OK to basically steal a person’s property? Because that’s what this basically is. She is living there and won’t leave. So he has no real access to that area of the property. She has effectively stolen it. So your logic is theft is OK.
And no you didn’t directly say it but you implied the hell out of it.
It’s insane to think that you can buy a home and another can come and steal it and it’s more insane to think that people believe it’s on to steal another’s property
So because they were here first, and stole all the land from the people, by “buying it” for trillionths of pennies on the dollar, we should respect their theft because they did it first?
No. The Commons must be respected, or The State must provide affordable housing such that a citizen pays a fixed percentage of their monthly income. Said fixed percentage should be between 2% as is the case in Estonia and Latvia, or as high as 5%, as is the case in multiple Nordic and Eastern European countries.
Meanwhile the rich, and corporations, aren’t allowed to make dynasties by purchasing land and intellectual property rights in perpetuity. You have never had an original idea, and neither have I. The vast majority of people don’t. All ideas must enter the public domain within 30 years.
The real problem you have is that the government under Clinton outlawed the government from owning more than a specific dollar amount of residential property. Meanwhile, the federal government owns more than 1/3 of the land in the country, and could totally create housing for those “undesirable tenants” that you can’t leech off of.
Landleeches must be regulated. You fuckers caused the housing shortage in every modern developed country in the world.
“some family’s backyard”? did you read the article? This was a big mansion somewhere where famous people live. and they can’t evict the person because they’re lacking the permits for the rental. and it all started because they didn’t get the house in proper shape. so yeah, fuckem
It’s a guest house, in their yard. Yes I understand that yard is probably larger than most, but the definition doesn’t change just because it’s a rich neighborhood. And the point is this isn’t some house bought in some working-class neighborhood to make money off rentals while driving up prices and gentrifying the area, it’s a guest house on a property the family already owns and lives on. Hence why the “late stage capitalism” tag seems like a bit of a stretch.
Interesting that lacking a rental permit is somehow grounds for continuing to have someone living on the property rather than further grounds for eviction. I wonder if you’d apply the same logic to a room you listed on AirBnB to make some extra money off unused space without researching permits requirements.
here’s the thing: in the past i have used couchsurfing to house people. i don’t intend to make “extra money” off of people needing a roof over their head.
So it’s on to live on a person’s property without paying? It’s OK to basically steal a person’s property? Because that’s what this basically is. She is living there and won’t leave. So he has no real access to that area of the property. She has effectively stolen it. So your logic is theft is OK.
And no you didn’t directly say it but you implied the hell out of it.
landlords have destroyed the housing market. It is no longer realistic for a middle class person to buy their home. So yeah, fuck that landlord.
So theft of property is ok. Thanks for your input. Let me know how you feel when someone steals something of yours.
Eat the rich. You know when people say that, they don’t necessarily mean they like cannibalism.
I guess you must belong to the class of those to be eaten though, so I see why you’d be upset.
We don’t own things anymore.
You don’t own a car? A phone?
At some point you’ll own a house. How would you like it if someone stole it?
Hey you’re on a board full of communists. Stealing property is literally, literally, their explicit goal.
Yes because only communists are upset at the state of things and want to revolt…
Americans and their bullshit political takes never cease to amaze me.
The housing crisis is just starting in the US. Look at Canada and Australia to see how fucked the housing market can get.
Honestly hadn’t noticed which place I was in. The post popped up in “all” for me and I just clicked on it and started reading comments.
In a side note it’s insane to think that theft of property is acceptable.
Capitalists stole the commons. 5 billion people own nothing. It’s insane to think that property is more valuable than life.
It’s insane to think that you can buy a home and another can come and steal it and it’s more insane to think that people believe it’s on to steal another’s property
So because they were here first, and stole all the land from the people, by “buying it” for trillionths of pennies on the dollar, we should respect their theft because they did it first?
No. The Commons must be respected, or The State must provide affordable housing such that a citizen pays a fixed percentage of their monthly income. Said fixed percentage should be between 2% as is the case in Estonia and Latvia, or as high as 5%, as is the case in multiple Nordic and Eastern European countries.
Meanwhile the rich, and corporations, aren’t allowed to make dynasties by purchasing land and intellectual property rights in perpetuity. You have never had an original idea, and neither have I. The vast majority of people don’t. All ideas must enter the public domain within 30 years.
The real problem you have is that the government under Clinton outlawed the government from owning more than a specific dollar amount of residential property. Meanwhile, the federal government owns more than 1/3 of the land in the country, and could totally create housing for those “undesirable tenants” that you can’t leech off of.
Landleeches must be regulated. You fuckers caused the housing shortage in every modern developed country in the world.