here's my hot take, and I truly expect to take heat for this, but WHATEVER. My "better things are not significantly possible any time soon, so we need to deal as best we can" stance is well known.
-
Show this thread
-
The actual take I have: The way of life best suited to averting most major social issues (climate change, social isolation, right wing politics) - urbanism - will not be possible without landlords in the next several decades
3 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
I know what everyone's immediately going to say, "but, Ellie, housing COOPERATIVES or government entities can own high rise buildings!" Several responses to this: 1) government is good. That's true. Minus full communism, which ain't happening, all housing won't be gov't owned
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
2) I am not aware of any banks offering mortgage loans on high rises to cooperatives. Those are the two, fundamental, practical points: only for profit corporations can build the kind of units most suited for human flourishing right now. BUT ALSO
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
3) I do not want to live in a collective,cooperative,or any other situation where people are more in my business than they need to be.I want to live in a studio apartment in a high rise and mind my own business.This is most likely to happen with well regulated corporate landowner
3 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
A cooperative is going to be prone to the very types of policing and interference with personal life that a corporate landlord avoids. Yes corporations can discriminate, but 1) mostly they're too busy 2) this can be solved with regulation
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Even if we could regulate out the collective's ability to police a resident's life, I and a lot of people do not *want* to be "building equity" in a home. I'm absolutely aghast at the prospect of what would have happened to me had I bought a house in NJ when I had a good job.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Renting, when it works properly, gives a person the most freedom within anything remotely resembling the current system, to move around and do as they please. The problems with it are failings of regulation.
4 replies 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
Yeah a lot of the things people are pushing as basic human rights -- focused on guaranteed availability of housing under conditions of absolute freedom of movement -- would be best served by public housing (housing as a socialized service)
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes
The problem is this contradicts other rights that other people want to hold up as basic human rights, like the absolute freedom to modify your living space any way you want and have control over it Which unfortunately does imply the concept of property rights and ownership
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.