The only way I got that to happen is by putting in my two-month notice and then signing up for the exact same unit when they listed it. Didn't even have to moveout and they ended up charging us the lower rate for the two weeks between our current lease ending and the new one starting.

Housing price didn't ever go down in most cases because of hoarding, there's no way leeches will ever decrease the rent.

And companies own, or even better that better have some good reasoning for buying a property that's for living.

They could also tie it to occupancy. If a functional residence goes more than half the year without someone living in it, property tax is quintupled.

There’s danger to writing such a law correctly, unfortunately. I recall something in Ecuador where people were leaving extensions to their home just barely unfinished so that they could avoid certain residence laws until they had a buyer.

Lina Khans FTC sued them, but you can bet that will be quietly dropped soon.

Not necessarily true. There are powerful cultural forces at play that they're not willing to acknowledge, yet alone overcome.

We're kind of in the same boat. We think that if we have more, then we deserve more before those who have less. That's just what these people are doing, only they're doing it way better than us.

So odd seeing 'the human thumb' here. NZ is an embarrassment and this twat is NOT helping

I was about to say, that landlord looks super familiar

This.

The core problem is consumerism. The idea that if you have more, then you should get more and spend more while complaining you don't have enough.

To the occupant, "Land Contracts" are probably the most rent-like alternatives to actual rent.

I would draw a big target on institutional investors, by jacking property taxes through the roof, while issuing "homestead" exemptions to owner occupants. As soon as we do that, every landlord (who doesn't live on the property) is going to get hit with a massive tax bill...

OR

... they are going to find some way to make their "tenant" qualify as the "owner".

Here's where "Land Contracts" come in. These are a form of seller financing. They are recorded by the county, much like a deed. The "buyer" is considered the owner.

With a land contract, you pay a fixed monthly payment, much like a mortgage. That payment normally doesn't change for the life of the contract: You aren't going to face a steep rent hike every year.

For the first three years, you are free to walk away from the property, just like leaving a rental. Ownership simply reverts to the seller.

After three years, your previous payments are considered the "down payment" on the property. The contract converts to a traditional mortgage. You continue to make the same payments, but now, you have equity in the home.

So, you can get the short-term flexibility of renting, but if you realize you've settled down, you're already well on your way to ownership.

Landlords get a way to claim that the property is occupied by the "owner", and avoid the massive tax hike.

Adopting this, the only properties that will remain "for rent" will be the spare units in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, where the landlord occupies one of the units.

If only a hero could rise up..

Most cities are regulated to prevent more housing being built. You should definitely read on the works of Strong Towns, and similar groups, and how you can help change the landscape of your city

Their website is great and has a ton of details https://www.strongtowns.org/

Doesn't work if landlords just buy that too.

Needs proper regulation