Shame they're in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren't allowed to own a "few" rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a "few" rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There would just be less housing. Construction workers are workers too, and as much as it sucks, they aren't going to put $50k of their own labor and materials at risk so that a person living paycheck to paycheck can own a home, regardless of how noble that pursuit might be.

I also support radical action to end housing shortages and homelessness, and believe secure housing is a fundamental human right. If the government wanted to buy my properties at cost, using my own tax dollars, and gift them to those in need, I would support that. If they wanted to turn my current home into high density housing, I would support that. I am doing many things on my own, both through advocacy and direct action to address the real moral problem of housing. Unfortunately, I have no interest in being a smug slacktivist, so it often seems like lemmy doesn't have any interest in my ideas.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not everyone wants to own and it can even be profitable not to... It's like if the anti landlord movement wants to force ownership on everyone...

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Obviously not. The "movement" wants to remove profit intensives from the whole process