this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
833 points (98.7% liked)
People Twitter
7728 readers
561 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those people are called "landlords".
I think I failed to convey the fact that land contracts provide that exact function. The occupant can unilaterally cancel the contract in the first three years, walking away free and clear. Just like ending a rental agreement. I'm not interfering with short-term housing or tying people to homes they don't want. I'm protecting short term tenants from exploitation, even if they decide to make their temporary plans into a permanent home.
I don't know about Germany, but corporate entities are rapidly buying up residential properties in the US. Many are using the same third-party algorithm to establish their rent prices. No amount of government regulation of their business model can effectively suppress the effects of such widespread collusion. They are actively working around rent controls and other tenancy protections.
The solution is to make traditional renting unfeasible for the landlord. Replace it with a system where investors are effectively forced to convey ownership interest if they want to profit from providing housing.
"Renting" will not be feasible for corporate investors once we establish an owner-occupancy exemption to residential property taxes. When we establish that exemption, we are free to peg the property tax rate to the owner-occupancy rate. Any year the rate is below 80%, the effective property tax rate for investors increases by 20%. It doesn't start dropping again until the owner occupancy rate exceeds 90%. Corporate landlords will be forced to sell outright, or get their tenants under a land contract instead of a rental agreement. Vacant properties will incur the full wrath of the tax man.
I can only speak of personal experience but I rented when I went to university. I rented during my first 3 jobs. I rented when I relocated to another country. I rented when I was contracting for 6 months in another city (I had already purchased a house elsewhere). In every case I had no intention of buying a(nother) house. I rented because I wanted to, not because of greedy corporate overlords forced me to.
Most people renting are in similar situations. They want to be somewhere for a year or two, to make plans or move on, but not be tied down with debt or obligations if they want to leave. There is nothing stopping them buying a property but there is a commitment and obligation they don't want to get into.
So rent is not going away any time soon. Legislation is necessary to curb the worse abuses, but pretending people don't want to rent is is a failed argument.
This is the third time I have pointed out that "land contracts" can fulfill the purposes you are describing.
In every situation you mentioned, a "land contract" would have performed exactly the same function is "renting".
I understand you:
The only difference you would have experienced between "renting" and "land contract" is that the top of each of those five agreements would have said "Land Contract" instead of "Rental Agreement".
Yes, a Land Contract has additional terms and conditions that only apply if you stay more than three years. You are not obligated to stay those three years. You can unilaterally end the contract before those three years.
You should be able to understand that "Renting" is more convenient for the landlord. Not the occupant. The people who knowingly want "rental agreements" are landlords not tenants. Landlords want to be able to hike rental payments every year; land contracts have the monthly payment fixed from day one. A "rent freeze" is a fundamental component built directly into a land contract.
"Land Contracts" do not have the additional commitments and obligations you are describing. Those are components of traditional purchase agreements. They are not components of Land Contracts.
Again: You can walk away, free and clear, in the first three years. You have the option of staying longer, in which case your payments begin to generate equity in the property. But you are not obligated to say, and you can also renegotiate the contract after three years if you really don't want that equity.
(Practically speaking, you would be able to walk away entirely after those three years as well. If you did, your landlord would have to cut you a check to buy out your acquired equity before he could take on another tenant)
No. "Short Term Housing Needs" are not going away soon. I am not suggesting they should. The need for temporary housing is perfectly reasonable, and I am preserving the means of filling that need, even as I kill "renting".
Why am I so concerned about land contracts? I'm not. I don't actually give a fuck about land contracts at all. What I want is for corporate landlords to be assessed property taxes that are so high that they are forced out of the market. The best way I know how to do that is to run up everyone's property taxes, and exempt owner-occupants from paying them. That tax hike alone is all we really need. To get that tax hike, I have to explain to you that I won't be cutting off the supply of short-term housing.
"Land Contracts" are what landlords are going to use to adapt to that tax hike. A landlord who tries to "rent" is going to have to pay a massive property tax bill. That same landlord can issue a "land contract" instead of a rental agreement. The monthly payment for that land contract will be lower, but because the property tax hike is exempted for the "owner occupant", they will actually earn more than they would renting.
Tenants will start earning equity instead of paying everything to a landlord. There will be a "rent" freeze, simply because that is an inherent component of land contracts. Corporate landlords lose their ability to hike rent year after year. Short-term housing is still available. Wins across the board.
Rent needs to die in a goddamn fire.
sounds overcomplicated, why not just rebrand the so called "land contract" into renting?
edit: wouldn't land contracts required idiotic amounts of identification as opposed to renting which requires none?
Because landlords dont want land contracts. They make more on rent.
All we have to do is set up an owner-occupant exemption to a massive property tax hike. Landlords won't be eligible for that exemption.
Landlords will use land contracts to get around that hike. They'll be pushing for tenants to become owners in order to avoid the tax man.
No. It's an agreement between two parties. They require no more identification than any other agreement between two parties.
Technically, the agreement should be registered with the county as it affects the deed of the property, but that isn't strictly necessary for the first three years.