5 ms·

These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. This notion that you can own land without occupying it

These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. This notion that you can own land without occupying it (or paying somebody to occupy it) is an absurdly backwards idea that is responsible for a lot of suffering and exploitation in modern society. We've constructed a bit of a euphemism for this. "I just want to make a living to put food on my plate". Except it's not the food that's expensive. It's the rent. Which in many places, for low income earners amounts to greater than 50% of their take home pay. In my city there are dozens of empty stores in the CBD "for lease" as if there is no demand for use of these properties. Absolutely ridiculous. Strangely enough, everyone thinks that renting a home or workplace to occupy is a perfectly normal thing to do. Would be great to have a discussion on this.

spartanliving4u 4y ago
stick to coding because you do not seem to understand basic economic and business principles
- solveit 4y ago
  You are absolutely correct that the other guy doesn't understand basic economics but this comment is needlessly aggressive.
jakogut 4y ago
> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. While I do agree that property needs maintenance, why would a landlord pay somebody to occupy their property? What's the incentive to own the property at all then?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
  >While I do agree that property needs maintenance, why would a landlord pay somebody to occupy their property? What's the incentive to own the property at all then? To live in or use? That seems like a way better situation!
  - amflare 4y ago
    What about the people who need some land to live in or use but can't afford the costs that come along with it (either purchase or maintainance)?
    - wildrhythms 4y ago
      They can't afford the costs because the landlords have inflated the costs. It's a cycle that doesn't need to exist.
      - amflare 4y ago
        That doesn't answer the question. An 18 year old who has literally never worked a day in his life can not afford an apartment no matter what the price, inflated or not. Should land owners be obligated to lower the price to $0.25 so that this teenager can buy the property with a coin he finds on the street? Should it be $20 so that his first paycheck can be used to buy lodging? Should all plumbers and electricians offer their services for a couple dollars so that every teenager can keep their new property maintained? You have created a false reality, and then cried foul when real life didn't play ball.
        frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
        >Should land owners be obligated to lower the price to $0.25 so that this teenager can buy the property with a coin he finds on the street? Wouldn't a reality where land is only held by those using it and you can buy land for a quarter be better? I don't even mean to be funny or anything but that seems like a much better situation that our current one.
        4y ago
- rubyn00bie 4y ago
  I think the argument is, the landlord is not contributing anything productive and is attempting to freeload off of other’s productivity. Most businesses both agree to pay rent and make improvements to the property. When a landlord is demanding both, they are not contributing anything but still seek payment. It is a form of “rent seeking” in the economic sense: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp#toc-what-is-rent-seeking https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp#toc-wha... And so what would be the incentive then to own property? Well if you cannot be productive with it, or otherwise enjoy it for personal reasons, then you wouldn’t have any reason to… which would let people who can do something productive with it the opportunity to do so. Can a landlord contribute something productive? Sure, but that’s probably more akin to a property management company’s value proposition than a landlord’s.
  - amflare 4y ago
    > the landlord is not contributing anything productive and is attempting to freeload off of other’s productivity This is patently absurd. Does the Miller not provide anything productive when he brings flour to the Baker? The Landlord provides both a Good and a Service. Just because his contribution is not necessarily concurrent with the Tenet's, does not mean that he is not contributing anything productive.
    - skyyler 4y ago
      The miller operates the mill to provide his value. What does the landlord do? The miller isn't merely holding a millstone captive, he (or another miller) is required to operate it. If the miller dies, someone else has to operate the mill. What happens when a landlord dies? What meaningfully changes?
    - rubyn00bie 4y ago
      What does the landlord bring? I think you’re confusing landlord with property manager. The landlord brings nothing and has no productive contribution. They seek only to create scarcity and leech off of others productive output. Please, list contributions made by the landlord specifically.
causality0 4y ago
Agree. Imagine if someone claimed dominion over a chunk of the sky or an acre of water. You'd call him a fool and ignore him. The only way land is different is that it's easier to demarcate.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Please look up "air rights".
- dwaite 4y ago
  Nations generally do claim dominion over their waterways, coastlines, and airspace, and maintain military forces which can enforce such things.
  - gremlinsinc 4y ago
    Nations, but people and corporations aren't nations. Can apply institute a no fly-zone over their HQ? Edit: meaning land, air, water should belong to the people of said nation, and should be taxed as such and divided out to the people as guaranteed basic income.
    - dwaite 4y ago
      I'd say the purpose of a nation is to manage resources, which are often natural resources. Some locales have deeds for land have time limits; you don't own the land, you have been granted rights to it. Sometimes the FAA will limit airspace usage for private property, for instance restricting airspace around stadiums during sporting events. You're right that a corporation can't unilaterally declare the airspace over their land their headquarters sits on as a no-fly zone. But the government may still work with them on policy.
- yucky 4y ago
  Imagine if someone claimed dominion over a chunk of the sky or an acre of water. You'd call him a fool and ignore him. Well, governments do exactly that.
ben_w 4y ago
Adam Smith and Carl Marx both agree with you. > As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. and > No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the… > Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public…
- zajio1am 4y ago
  The main difference is that Adam Smith wrote about real land, i.e. natural resource, while current discourse about rent is focused on buildings/apartments - human produced capital.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I think the argument still applies even if you don't go past the land itself. The land itself is the primary cost of housing. This is why we were able to build most of our most famous skylines in much poorer economies than the the people currently struggling to afford to to buy or to rent those same properties.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I don't think that's what Adam Smith was getting at. He was saying that gathering food that grew freely shouldn't be taxed by people who put a fence round it and did nothing to make it grow.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    How is that different than what landlords do? Genuine question.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Generally there's a building that's useful and the local government have designated that people are allowed to live there. Unless you mean by landlords "people who own campsites" - that's probably the closest thing to what Adam Smith was describing. Although even they supply amenities.
Animatronio 4y ago
Yours is a very strange idea indeed. I guess if you're alright with this then you agree to negative interest for deposits (you pay the bank to keep your money). Yes rent is a major cost for businesses that depend on foot traffic, so landlords take advantage of that to extract more money. It's just the way capitalism works.
- quadcore 4y ago
  you pay the bank to keep your money That's 100% the case actually. With the added subtlety we agree that the bank can pay itself by leveraging the money. Or more precisely, the competitive bank will tell you "I keep it for free and will even give you interests" cause it knows it can pay itself by leveraging the money.
- throw8383833jj 4y ago
  Yes but capitalism can also work to make things much much cheaper to almost no cost at all. You simply increase the amount of land available and make regulations that allow for cheaper buildings. 200 years ago, humanity had no problem at all making buildings cheap. Why now all the sudden we're so obtuse that we won't allow it any more.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > you agree to negative interest for deposits (you pay the bank to keep your money). You say this as if paying someone to take care of something for you is a patent absurdity instead of commonplace.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It should feel a little strange for banks, where the bank itself makes so much money on pooling and investing people's savings.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
swighton 4y ago
Building and maintaining commercial properties is absurdly expensive. A landlord takes on the cost, risk, and time of building and maintaining that property in exchange for businesses not having to deal with that. The idea that a landlord should invest serious capital to build a business park and then pay people to use it is nonsense. In that arrangement zero business properties would be made. People who wish to start a business would have to foot the bill to purchase or build a space for their business.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Landlords != developers Landlords != developers Again, landlords != developers Some entities are both of these things, but the economics and incentives of the two modes of business are completely different.
  - amflare 4y ago
    The developers do not just eat the cost of building a property, they pass it on in the sale price. So yeah, landlords still end up having to deal with it, on top of the day to day maintenance.
    - ruined 4y ago
      The landlords do not just eat the cost of purchasing and managing a property, they pass it on in the lease. So yeah, tenants still end up having to deal with it, on top of the day to day maintenance.
      - Plasmoid 4y ago
        Landlords aren't in the property business. They're in the liquidity business. I know it sounds weird but that's their function in society, they are one of the many "business lubricant" sellers that allow modern society to work. A liquidity provider is someone who makes transactions easier. The insurance company will insure you against risk does this. The lender who provides loans does this. The landlord who rents property does this. You can run an economy without them, but things will cost more and take longer to happen.
throw8383833jj 4y ago
the problem is: we require people to either own land or pay someone else that owns land. That alone wouldn't be an issue without the second requirement: You can't have any land because all of it belongs to the government. Even CA, one of the most overpopulated states in the US has more acres of land than people. We need to start opening up land for development: mainly by starting cities in new underdeveloped states and creating incentives for companies to move there. Once people spread out a bit more, we'll see that there's enough land for everyone and it doesn't need to cost a huge amount to own land or real estate.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  We also need to stop building homes w/ 1900s tech and methods. You can build just as sturdy/sound a home for 10k using earthbags as you can 200k w/ a contractor, albeit there's a lot of hard work, but if you can do it, then you should be allowed to, but zoning laws don't always look favorable on homesteading. There's a family on youtube who has like 5 homes (1 for each kid, more like little studio apartments as their bedroom), and a big office. All built for <10k each. Imagine if you could buy 20 acres of land, and put a bunch of outside-the-box homes and apartments and charge minimal fees (like maybe 300/month HOA). You could build homes using: Earthbags, earthship, dome/concrete, containers, etc. Any home that uses earth also has the huge advantage of it being an awesome insulator. Earthship homes manage to fluctuate between 50/80 regardless of location or climate (winter/summer respectively). Creative homing I think could be a big solution to the problems if more people team up and build their own rentals on co-op'd land, then rental prices would go down a lot because demand would go down, or landlords would simply go broke because nobody will rent from them.
GaylordTuring 4y ago
> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. Please, ELI5, how would there be any landlords left if they had to pay their tenants (rather than the other way around)? Or maybe you’re arguing that there shouldn’t be any landlords?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  There would be as many landlords left as there were people who had a need to keep up the maintenance of property that they couldn't currently use, but planned to. The same reason why you would pay a housesitter. I hope you're not implying that society should make rules based on the preservation of the passive income of landowners. Landlords don't add value to anything; they speculatively purchased a title, and are trying to extract value from it.
  - gremlinsinc 4y ago
    I'm a libertarian socialist, so while I agree landlords are often evil, I'm also a pragmatist, and don't see the entire system just changing overnight. A better more practical approach would be guaranteed basic income, and a land value tax that's somehow tied to average rent prices, so if rents go up, the land value tax goes up so much that it probably would've been better to keep rents lower than pay the higher tax. Since the money from the LVT goes towards GBI, and people's rents are being offset, the one incruing a lot of the costs is the landlord, and they don't just have a free for all. They need to double the tax though on airbnb and 'hospitality' designated residences that do short-term leases instead of long-term leases. I'd even say give some lenience for people w/ less than 3 homes (i.e. you get your home/land free/clear and 1 rental you get 10% of normal LTV, instead of the full tax), then maybe graduate it up... 4-10th house you pay 50% on, 10th+ you pay 100% on. Foreign investors should pay double the tax, if you want investment property in America, then pay other Americans who can't use those homes.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. Maintaining the property and occupying the property aren't the same thing. It doesn't make sense to equate the two. Landlords are responsible for maintaining the property. Maintaining commercial real estate is actually quite expensive. It's definitely less expensive to own and maintain an empty property than to own and maintain a property with $0 renters who are putting wear and tear on it.
- etchalon 4y ago
  Depends on your lease terms. Many, if not the majority, of commercial leases, including mine, are Net leases, which have the business maintaining the property (and paying the property taxes in the case of a triple Net lease). And many, if not most, commercial leases are not year to year, but over three or five years.
Ekaros 4y ago
How would that even work? Why would anyone own or build property if it didn't generate money? And why aren't these small business owners buying and building their own property as it would be cheaper for them in long run.
- etchalon 4y ago
  Capital, and access to it, and the costs associated with raising it, is a thing.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Right. The failure rate for restaurants is (depending on who you believe) up to 60% in the first year. That's the kind of business that would simply cease to exist if prospective business owners had to convince lenders to fund large capital costs.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Restaurants existed before current capitalization structures and traditions, despite this being impossible.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        If you're OK with your model for entrepreneurship starting with "first, be wealthy" then you can absolutely have restaurants that way - yes.
      - jjk166 4y ago
        Renting property dates back to ancient times. It certainly long predates the modern restaurant. We have records of rent contracts 300 years older than the first known instance of a place where people could buy freshly prepared meals.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
amflare 4y ago
Owning property is a longterm commitment that limits flexibility and comes with some hefty costs. Rent solves these problems. A small company thats growing might need 2000 sq/ft today and a projected 10,000 sq/ft next year. But if you have to purchases and maintain 10,000 sq/ft for a year, that to be prohibitively expensive to the point that they can't afford to grow that much. Why then is it ridiculous for me to own 10,000 sq/ft and parcel it out to 5 business that need 2000 sq/ft? I'm taking on the costs of owning and maintaining the property, as will as taxes and other assorted costs. It is fair for me to pass those costs on to the actual tenets of the property for as long as they choose to reside on the premises. They get flexibility and scalability, and I get money for my time and effort to provide their needs.
- pc86 4y ago
  You're taking on the cost of purchasing the property, which is certainly not nothing. But as a commercial landlord, your tenants pay all the costs of owning and maintaining it, they pay all the taxes, they pay everything. Every commercial lease is structured this way. You have an outlay of capital to acquire the property up front, and you have a minimal amount of risk if a large portion of the property goes unrented. But even a brand new owner will typically only need to reach 30-40% occupancy by square footage in order to break even, and the unrented portions can be written off for a tax credit. I would love it if the commercial landlords I've rented from in the past were providing services for the exorbitant checks they were getting every month, but the only different I've encountered between commercial landlords and residential slumlords is that there are generally government protections for the tenants of a slumlord, commercial tenants not so much.
  - ejstronge 4y ago
    > Every commercial lease is structured this way. Triple net leases are quite desirable for landlords but by no means are the sole kind of commercial lease. The most common splits some of the costs of building maintenance (a ‘modified gross’ lease)
    - pc86 4y ago
thot_experiment 4y ago
random thoughts about this without too deep consideration: When you rent a place out some portion of the rent should be legally required to go toward an ownership stake. The landlord should have to buy you out if you leave, and you should have the option to buy the landlord out as well. Empty properties should slowly fall into public domain and be re-sold to the public at a low cost based on a lottery system or similar. While renting-collecting-systems aren't necessarily bad, they're usually bad and we should really seek to limit the ability of people to create them. P.S. yes this should also apply to SaaS
- Plasmoid 4y ago
  Sounds like ownership via borrowing with extra steps.
bergenty 4y ago
What incentive is there to develop properties then? So you spend millions on building a commercial property and then… you pay people to occupy it? What about rewarding people for building things? This is an asinine comment.
- Splizard 4y ago
  The incentive is to sell the developed property for a profit. The state would be responsible for determining what the reasonable occupancy rates are on properties for sale or under development. A paid occupier (perhaps a real-estate agent) can be placed onsite for the reasonable amount of time in order to avoid any default occupancy fees by the state.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Why would anyone invest anything for something that doesn't produce profit? Developed properties sell because they are expected to generate profit. And in future higher such. If they didn't it would make more sense just to sit on pile of cash instead of deteoriting building.
bsder 4y ago
> This notion that you can own land without occupying it (or paying somebody to occupy it) is an absurdly backwards idea that is responsible for a lot of suffering and exploitation in modern society. That's called an occupancy tax and it stops most of the idiocy in the commercial renting sector really quickly.
timbo1642 4y ago

spartanliving4u 4y ago

stick to coding because you do not seem to understand basic economic and business principles

solveit 4y ago
You are absolutely correct that the other guy doesn't understand basic economics but this comment is needlessly aggressive.

jakogut 4y ago

> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. While I do agree that property needs maintenance, why would a landlord pay somebody to occupy their property? What's the incentive to own the property at all then?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
>While I do agree that property needs maintenance, why would a landlord pay somebody to occupy their property? What's the incentive to own the property at all then? To live in or use? That seems like a way better situation!
- amflare 4y ago
  What about the people who need some land to live in or use but can't afford the costs that come along with it (either purchase or maintainance)?
  - wildrhythms 4y ago
    They can't afford the costs because the landlords have inflated the costs. It's a cycle that doesn't need to exist.
    - amflare 4y ago
      That doesn't answer the question. An 18 year old who has literally never worked a day in his life can not afford an apartment no matter what the price, inflated or not. Should land owners be obligated to lower the price to $0.25 so that this teenager can buy the property with a coin he finds on the street? Should it be $20 so that his first paycheck can be used to buy lodging? Should all plumbers and electricians offer their services for a couple dollars so that every teenager can keep their new property maintained? You have created a false reality, and then cried foul when real life didn't play ball.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
        >Should land owners be obligated to lower the price to $0.25 so that this teenager can buy the property with a coin he finds on the street? Wouldn't a reality where land is only held by those using it and you can buy land for a quarter be better? I don't even mean to be funny or anything but that seems like a much better situation that our current one.
      - 4y ago
rubyn00bie 4y ago
I think the argument is, the landlord is not contributing anything productive and is attempting to freeload off of other’s productivity. Most businesses both agree to pay rent and make improvements to the property. When a landlord is demanding both, they are not contributing anything but still seek payment. It is a form of “rent seeking” in the economic sense: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp#toc-what-is-rent-seeking https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp#toc-wha... And so what would be the incentive then to own property? Well if you cannot be productive with it, or otherwise enjoy it for personal reasons, then you wouldn’t have any reason to… which would let people who can do something productive with it the opportunity to do so. Can a landlord contribute something productive? Sure, but that’s probably more akin to a property management company’s value proposition than a landlord’s.
- amflare 4y ago
  > the landlord is not contributing anything productive and is attempting to freeload off of other’s productivity This is patently absurd. Does the Miller not provide anything productive when he brings flour to the Baker? The Landlord provides both a Good and a Service. Just because his contribution is not necessarily concurrent with the Tenet's, does not mean that he is not contributing anything productive.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    The miller operates the mill to provide his value. What does the landlord do? The miller isn't merely holding a millstone captive, he (or another miller) is required to operate it. If the miller dies, someone else has to operate the mill. What happens when a landlord dies? What meaningfully changes?
  - rubyn00bie 4y ago
    What does the landlord bring? I think you’re confusing landlord with property manager. The landlord brings nothing and has no productive contribution. They seek only to create scarcity and leech off of others productive output. Please, list contributions made by the landlord specifically.

causality0 4y ago

Agree. Imagine if someone claimed dominion over a chunk of the sky or an acre of water. You'd call him a fool and ignore him. The only way land is different is that it's easier to demarcate.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Please look up "air rights".
dwaite 4y ago
Nations generally do claim dominion over their waterways, coastlines, and airspace, and maintain military forces which can enforce such things.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  Nations, but people and corporations aren't nations. Can apply institute a no fly-zone over their HQ? Edit: meaning land, air, water should belong to the people of said nation, and should be taxed as such and divided out to the people as guaranteed basic income.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    I'd say the purpose of a nation is to manage resources, which are often natural resources. Some locales have deeds for land have time limits; you don't own the land, you have been granted rights to it. Sometimes the FAA will limit airspace usage for private property, for instance restricting airspace around stadiums during sporting events. You're right that a corporation can't unilaterally declare the airspace over their land their headquarters sits on as a no-fly zone. But the government may still work with them on policy.
yucky 4y ago
Imagine if someone claimed dominion over a chunk of the sky or an acre of water. You'd call him a fool and ignore him. Well, governments do exactly that.

ben_w 4y ago

Adam Smith and Carl Marx both agree with you. > As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. and > No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the… > Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public…

zajio1am 4y ago
The main difference is that Adam Smith wrote about real land, i.e. natural resource, while current discourse about rent is focused on buildings/apartments - human produced capital.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I think the argument still applies even if you don't go past the land itself. The land itself is the primary cost of housing. This is why we were able to build most of our most famous skylines in much poorer economies than the the people currently struggling to afford to to buy or to rent those same properties.
robertlagrant 4y ago
I don't think that's what Adam Smith was getting at. He was saying that gathering food that grew freely shouldn't be taxed by people who put a fence round it and did nothing to make it grow.
- skyyler 4y ago
  How is that different than what landlords do? Genuine question.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Generally there's a building that's useful and the local government have designated that people are allowed to live there. Unless you mean by landlords "people who own campsites" - that's probably the closest thing to what Adam Smith was describing. Although even they supply amenities.

Animatronio 4y ago

Yours is a very strange idea indeed. I guess if you're alright with this then you agree to negative interest for deposits (you pay the bank to keep your money). Yes rent is a major cost for businesses that depend on foot traffic, so landlords take advantage of that to extract more money. It's just the way capitalism works.

quadcore 4y ago
you pay the bank to keep your money That's 100% the case actually. With the added subtlety we agree that the bank can pay itself by leveraging the money. Or more precisely, the competitive bank will tell you "I keep it for free and will even give you interests" cause it knows it can pay itself by leveraging the money.
throw8383833jj 4y ago
Yes but capitalism can also work to make things much much cheaper to almost no cost at all. You simply increase the amount of land available and make regulations that allow for cheaper buildings. 200 years ago, humanity had no problem at all making buildings cheap. Why now all the sudden we're so obtuse that we won't allow it any more.
pessimizer 4y ago
> you agree to negative interest for deposits (you pay the bank to keep your money). You say this as if paying someone to take care of something for you is a patent absurdity instead of commonplace.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It should feel a little strange for banks, where the bank itself makes so much money on pooling and investing people's savings.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

swighton 4y ago

Building and maintaining commercial properties is absurdly expensive. A landlord takes on the cost, risk, and time of building and maintaining that property in exchange for businesses not having to deal with that. The idea that a landlord should invest serious capital to build a business park and then pay people to use it is nonsense. In that arrangement zero business properties would be made. People who wish to start a business would have to foot the bill to purchase or build a space for their business.

ethanbond 4y ago
Landlords != developers Landlords != developers Again, landlords != developers Some entities are both of these things, but the economics and incentives of the two modes of business are completely different.
- amflare 4y ago
  The developers do not just eat the cost of building a property, they pass it on in the sale price. So yeah, landlords still end up having to deal with it, on top of the day to day maintenance.
  - ruined 4y ago
    The landlords do not just eat the cost of purchasing and managing a property, they pass it on in the lease. So yeah, tenants still end up having to deal with it, on top of the day to day maintenance.
    - Plasmoid 4y ago
      Landlords aren't in the property business. They're in the liquidity business. I know it sounds weird but that's their function in society, they are one of the many "business lubricant" sellers that allow modern society to work. A liquidity provider is someone who makes transactions easier. The insurance company will insure you against risk does this. The lender who provides loans does this. The landlord who rents property does this. You can run an economy without them, but things will cost more and take longer to happen.

throw8383833jj 4y ago

the problem is: we require people to either own land or pay someone else that owns land. That alone wouldn't be an issue without the second requirement: You can't have any land because all of it belongs to the government. Even CA, one of the most overpopulated states in the US has more acres of land than people. We need to start opening up land for development: mainly by starting cities in new underdeveloped states and creating incentives for companies to move there. Once people spread out a bit more, we'll see that there's enough land for everyone and it doesn't need to cost a huge amount to own land or real estate.

gremlinsinc 4y ago
We also need to stop building homes w/ 1900s tech and methods. You can build just as sturdy/sound a home for 10k using earthbags as you can 200k w/ a contractor, albeit there's a lot of hard work, but if you can do it, then you should be allowed to, but zoning laws don't always look favorable on homesteading. There's a family on youtube who has like 5 homes (1 for each kid, more like little studio apartments as their bedroom), and a big office. All built for <10k each. Imagine if you could buy 20 acres of land, and put a bunch of outside-the-box homes and apartments and charge minimal fees (like maybe 300/month HOA). You could build homes using: Earthbags, earthship, dome/concrete, containers, etc. Any home that uses earth also has the huge advantage of it being an awesome insulator. Earthship homes manage to fluctuate between 50/80 regardless of location or climate (winter/summer respectively). Creative homing I think could be a big solution to the problems if more people team up and build their own rentals on co-op'd land, then rental prices would go down a lot because demand would go down, or landlords would simply go broke because nobody will rent from them.

GaylordTuring 4y ago

> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. Please, ELI5, how would there be any landlords left if they had to pay their tenants (rather than the other way around)? Or maybe you’re arguing that there shouldn’t be any landlords?

pessimizer 4y ago
There would be as many landlords left as there were people who had a need to keep up the maintenance of property that they couldn't currently use, but planned to. The same reason why you would pay a housesitter. I hope you're not implying that society should make rules based on the preservation of the passive income of landowners. Landlords don't add value to anything; they speculatively purchased a title, and are trying to extract value from it.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  I'm a libertarian socialist, so while I agree landlords are often evil, I'm also a pragmatist, and don't see the entire system just changing overnight. A better more practical approach would be guaranteed basic income, and a land value tax that's somehow tied to average rent prices, so if rents go up, the land value tax goes up so much that it probably would've been better to keep rents lower than pay the higher tax. Since the money from the LVT goes towards GBI, and people's rents are being offset, the one incruing a lot of the costs is the landlord, and they don't just have a free for all. They need to double the tax though on airbnb and 'hospitality' designated residences that do short-term leases instead of long-term leases. I'd even say give some lenience for people w/ less than 3 homes (i.e. you get your home/land free/clear and 1 rental you get 10% of normal LTV, instead of the full tax), then maybe graduate it up... 4-10th house you pay 50% on, 10th+ you pay 100% on. Foreign investors should pay double the tax, if you want investment property in America, then pay other Americans who can't use those homes.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them. Maintaining the property and occupying the property aren't the same thing. It doesn't make sense to equate the two. Landlords are responsible for maintaining the property. Maintaining commercial real estate is actually quite expensive. It's definitely less expensive to own and maintain an empty property than to own and maintain a property with $0 renters who are putting wear and tear on it.

etchalon 4y ago
Depends on your lease terms. Many, if not the majority, of commercial leases, including mine, are Net leases, which have the business maintaining the property (and paying the property taxes in the case of a triple Net lease). And many, if not most, commercial leases are not year to year, but over three or five years.

Ekaros 4y ago

How would that even work? Why would anyone own or build property if it didn't generate money? And why aren't these small business owners buying and building their own property as it would be cheaper for them in long run.

etchalon 4y ago
Capital, and access to it, and the costs associated with raising it, is a thing.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Right. The failure rate for restaurants is (depending on who you believe) up to 60% in the first year. That's the kind of business that would simply cease to exist if prospective business owners had to convince lenders to fund large capital costs.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Restaurants existed before current capitalization structures and traditions, despite this being impossible.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      If you're OK with your model for entrepreneurship starting with "first, be wealthy" then you can absolutely have restaurants that way - yes.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      Renting property dates back to ancient times. It certainly long predates the modern restaurant. We have records of rent contracts 300 years older than the first known instance of a place where people could buy freshly prepared meals.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

amflare 4y ago

Owning property is a longterm commitment that limits flexibility and comes with some hefty costs. Rent solves these problems. A small company thats growing might need 2000 sq/ft today and a projected 10,000 sq/ft next year. But if you have to purchases and maintain 10,000 sq/ft for a year, that to be prohibitively expensive to the point that they can't afford to grow that much. Why then is it ridiculous for me to own 10,000 sq/ft and parcel it out to 5 business that need 2000 sq/ft? I'm taking on the costs of owning and maintaining the property, as will as taxes and other assorted costs. It is fair for me to pass those costs on to the actual tenets of the property for as long as they choose to reside on the premises. They get flexibility and scalability, and I get money for my time and effort to provide their needs.

pc86 4y ago
You're taking on the cost of purchasing the property, which is certainly not nothing. But as a commercial landlord, your tenants pay all the costs of owning and maintaining it, they pay all the taxes, they pay everything. Every commercial lease is structured this way. You have an outlay of capital to acquire the property up front, and you have a minimal amount of risk if a large portion of the property goes unrented. But even a brand new owner will typically only need to reach 30-40% occupancy by square footage in order to break even, and the unrented portions can be written off for a tax credit. I would love it if the commercial landlords I've rented from in the past were providing services for the exorbitant checks they were getting every month, but the only different I've encountered between commercial landlords and residential slumlords is that there are generally government protections for the tenants of a slumlord, commercial tenants not so much.
- ejstronge 4y ago
  > Every commercial lease is structured this way. Triple net leases are quite desirable for landlords but by no means are the sole kind of commercial lease. The most common splits some of the costs of building maintenance (a ‘modified gross’ lease)
  - pc86 4y ago

thot_experiment 4y ago

random thoughts about this without too deep consideration: When you rent a place out some portion of the rent should be legally required to go toward an ownership stake. The landlord should have to buy you out if you leave, and you should have the option to buy the landlord out as well. Empty properties should slowly fall into public domain and be re-sold to the public at a low cost based on a lottery system or similar. While renting-collecting-systems aren't necessarily bad, they're usually bad and we should really seek to limit the ability of people to create them. P.S. yes this should also apply to SaaS

Plasmoid 4y ago
Sounds like ownership via borrowing with extra steps.

bergenty 4y ago

What incentive is there to develop properties then? So you spend millions on building a commercial property and then… you pay people to occupy it? What about rewarding people for building things? This is an asinine comment.

Splizard 4y ago
The incentive is to sell the developed property for a profit. The state would be responsible for determining what the reasonable occupancy rates are on properties for sale or under development. A paid occupier (perhaps a real-estate agent) can be placed onsite for the reasonable amount of time in order to avoid any default occupancy fees by the state.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Why would anyone invest anything for something that doesn't produce profit? Developed properties sell because they are expected to generate profit. And in future higher such. If they didn't it would make more sense just to sit on pile of cash instead of deteoriting building.

bsder 4y ago

> This notion that you can own land without occupying it (or paying somebody to occupy it) is an absurdly backwards idea that is responsible for a lot of suffering and exploitation in modern society. That's called an occupancy tax and it stops most of the idiocy in the commercial renting sector really quickly.

timbo1642 4y ago