• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    My horse in this race: Posts like this push a specific political ideology using emotion as fuel. I have the hindsight and the foresight to know what pushing violent and uneducated policies gives us.

    As for your hypothetical landlord who does zero maintenance, they’re financiers who hold all the liability so tenants don’t have to. Corporate Landlords shouldn’t exist in my opinion but single property landlords are cool in my book.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No, landlords do not hold all the liability. The real risk is on the renters. Every day I go to work, but if I lose my job and can’t pay rent, I could be homeless in a few months. That’s real liability.

      If some rich fuck might lose a hundred grand, hey that would suck, but they’ll be fine. Their life will go on just like it always did.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        If a property rental gets wrecked and the insurance, which the landlord pays, doesn’t cover it then who owes the bank the remainder of a loan equivalent to 5x the renters annual income?

        A) The Tenant

        B) The Landlord

        • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          If the insurance doesn’t cover it, the landlord fucked up. Should have gotten better insurance. Homeowner’s insurance is very cheap.

          Even if the insurance does cover it, the tenant loses all their belongings and their housing.