854
submitted 3 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/MbQYG

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 352 points 3 weeks ago

Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be... Check notes... That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.

[-] eee@lemm.ee 113 points 3 weeks ago

this is what is known as "a feature, not a bug"

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 3 weeks ago

SIKE! sold houses are only bought by corporate holding companies, now you've lost even more rights!

[-] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 31 points 3 weeks ago

In France there is a law that forces you to sell to your tenant if he has the highest bid

[-] General_Effort@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

Why would you need a law to make someone sell to the highest bidder?

[-] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 weeks ago

Because sometimes there's a tie

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

Or the landlord might just want to spite the tenant, or he might want to sell to a "new" buyer who turns out to be business partner/cohort/shell LLC/etc.

[-] LaMouette@jlai.lu 6 points 3 weeks ago

It's even better than that because it is illegal to make bids on a property you sell so the seller name a price and if someone want to buy it at that price it's sold. Most of the time buyers tries to bargain on markets where the demand is low

[-] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

This happened a lot during the Great Depression. But then I believe the owners found a way to withdraw the auctioned property if the minimum bid didn't suit them. The French law might bring back the Penny Auction by saying, "You put it up for bid - a sale has to go through."

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

They can still do that through proxy buyers. If you go to enough auctions, it's easy enough to pick them out.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

Wouldn't you sell to the highest bidder anyway?

[-] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, my wife and I didn't sell to the two highest bidders on our first house because the fuckers were obviously going to rent it out.

One was a bid entered by a piece of software often used by flippers and rental companies (had branding at the bottom of the pages etc) and the other was a cash in hand bid with an overt offer of more under the table, which is fairly illegal where we live.

We selected third place, someone who had messy handwriting, obviously has been written by two different people, and ended the bid with "777" which was cute and showed us not only were they human, they really wanted the place. And no wonder, with offers like the first two likely happening on nearly every sale in the area.

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago

I did that myself with a home. I ignored the high bid in favor of selling at a steep discount to a young family.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Wouldn’t most people sell to the highest bid anyway?

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Never any history of racial segregation in the housing market, nope. No Sir. Never.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Are people really accepting less money so they don’t sell to brown people? Like why would you care? You’re selling the property. You don’t have to deal with the new owners if you happen to be racist.

[-] neonbeige@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Granted, this article was from all the way back in… last week.

“An African-American woman’s quest to buy a pricey condo near the Virginia Beach Oceanfront – impeded by the white homeowner’s refusal because of her race – is just the latest example.”

“…landlords frequently use subtle methods or mask the real reasons why they don’t want people to move in.”

Virginia Mercury News

[-] PoopDelivery@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Gotta keep the community pure.

[-] PoopDelivery@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'll add, as a minority there are neighborhoods that are off limits because I know I would not be accepted, and, I have an "ethnic" name, so I assume some bias may be held towards people selling in neighborhoods like that.

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The neighbors care. So unless you don't live in that town it could make for some interesting neighborly interactions. Wouldn't be surprised to find court cases of neighbors suing for loss of property value.

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

There have been auctions in the past, mostly farm, that the community got together to drive off outsiders and then proceed to lowball every item on the auction. They would then return everything to the owner after the auction.

It was a fine 'fuck you' to the bank, until the bank closed or sold out because they no longer had the assets and cash reserves needed to stay open themselves. Which then screwed the rest of the community over.

[-] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yes but we had our fair share of assholes

[-] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

More precisely, when you sell the tenant has the right to buy it first.

If the landlord is thinking of accepting an external offer under the initial price then he has to ask again to the tenant if he would buy it at this lower price.

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 0 points 3 weeks ago

Umm, you can legally sell it to someone else and not the highest bidder?

[-] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 12 points 3 weeks ago

Not in France. If the tenant wants it, the tenant gets it

load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
854 points (98.4% liked)

News

21700 readers
4786 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS