Especially when those 2nd, 3rd, + properties are being used as passive short term rentals. Observing the state of the housing situation “Hmm there aren’t enough homes for normal families to each have a chance, I should turn this extra property of mine into a vacation rental.” does this make said person a POS?

  • Thrillhouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I have a second home but I inherited it. It would need 100s of ks in renos to rent out. It wouldn’t bring me much money to sell it - would probably need to sell for land value only.

    But - it’s a place of refuge for my family member in an emotionally abusive relationship, a friend struggling with her marriage, a crash space if anyone I love is in a rough spot. It’s brought my family together and it’s where we gather.

    I don’t think this is wrong because I am using it for net positive purposes in the long term, and someone otherwise probably couldn’t use it - it would be a tear-down.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If it’s legally habitable, someone could be living there imo. Just price the rent adequately low for the value. I’m not saying it’s morally evil for you to have it, but it’s definitely a luxury.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    One aspect not mentioned is that sometimes, second homes are in places that have a good supply of houses available. This makes them cheaper, and easier to afford. It also has more potential to grow in value down the road. If that’s the case, no issue. If not, it’s complicated.

  • normalexit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m far less concerned about individuals buying an extra house they can rent out. I’m more concerned with hedge funds buying up cities with cash offers that normal people can’t compete with.

    I personally wouldn’t own multiple homes for many reasons, but for people trying to eject out of the corporate grind, I get it.

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It depends.

    I think 1 home per adult is fine, for instance.

    I also think some places are designed to be short term rentals and have a heavy tourist local economy.

    I personally would like to tie some extra taxes to people that own more than one home.

    I’m thinking of buying a property near a lakeside town. Ideally it would be a townhouse or have 2-3 separate houses or cabins on the property; one for me and my SO to live in 2/3rds of year, the others for rentals or guests.

    Does that make me an asshole?

  • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    A lot places are making zoning laws against short term rentals, or making the permits prohibitively expensive. Where I live, there is an often repeated narrative about a “housing shortage” but the reality is the population is going down every year and apartment complexes and housing developments are spreading like rashes. Corporations are buying them up in order to control the market.

    A family renting out their mom’s house that they inherited after she died because they already bought a house and don’t want to live in hers? Are they assholes for not just selling the place (likely to a corp) and investing that money in other ways? No… I don’t think so…?

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why would you give a shit what anyone thinks? Charge a fair price, give them what they paid for. Don’t be bloodsucker leach and follow your conscience.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not necessarily. We were a young family that had to move quite a bit for my job. We made due with apartments, but we preferred renting a house. We were in no position to buy, and we knew we were only in the area short term, so we appreciated house rentals.

      Honest people with a second or third home for rent aren’t doing any harm.

    • papalonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      How do you answer that question honestly though? Say I’ve got enough liquid cash/ income to buy a second home, if I decide to just sit on this money or throw it in the stock market, does it magically make the family of four able to afford it? No, the house remains the same price, the family has the same amount of money, and the seller moves to the next buyer and sells it to them instead of me.

      If anything I’d rather my landlord be someone who owns 2 or 3 homes and rents them than a huge real estate company

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Where? In areas with tight housing markets, maybe. In places with houses in abundance, I don’t think so.

  • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    No. Unless it’s like a family situation where it requires it I think it’s unethical. People live in tents in the park in my city because housing is scarce and wildly expensive. It’s not right to be able to hoard property.

    • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unfortunately op asked two inverted questions so no could mean not ethical or no not a POS, or, somehow, unethical but not pos.

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I hope you are aware that people exist who can’t afford home ownership, and rental is their only option. If nobody owns a rental house for them to occupy, they have no chance of living in a house whatsoever.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I hope you realize that they only can’t afford housing because land lords create artificial scarcity.

        There’s more empty units in this country than unhoused people.

        Basic Supply and Demand says people ought to be paying people to take houses off their hands because they’re an oversupplied product.

        Rent collectors are literally the only reason housing is unaffordable to so many right now.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Housing is unaffordable because someone has to pay the construction.

          Check out this breakdown of a fairly low-end cost estimate: https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/cost-to-build-house/#financing

          Excluding land, you’re looking at about 135k USD. Land, whatever. Labor estimate is 30-50% according to the article, so let’s say around 190k (using ~40% and some rounding).

          And that gives you a bare-bone structure without a lick of paint, furniture, carpets, curtains or any other interior (and exterior) decoration.

          So even if you do everything by yourself on a gifted piece of land, I hope you can somehow understand that there are people out there who simply don’t have and/or qualify for a loan of >130k USD.

          TL;DR: Rent collectors are literally far from the only reason housing is unaffordable to so many right now.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Love how ya just skipped right over the whole part where there’s more empty units than there are unhoused people to fill them.

            You literally just completely ignored the actual substance of what the landlords are doing that makes housing unattainable in an oversupplied market.

            Building entirely new houses is a luxury for people who’ve lucked out big, we’re talking about the supply of housing that already exists, which in numbers alone, should be providing an all time low of prices adjusted for inflation.

            The “shortage” is an invented crisis to not acknowledge that we’d have no problems if we took a closer look at how much those landlord parasites actually need that fifth unit they also don’t live in.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Oh sure, like myself. I hate the idea of ownership. Ties you down and comes with a ton of extra bills and upkeep… I prefer the flexibility and ability to f-off if something bothers me at any given time. But that’s not the point the OP tried to make, so I didn’t even want to bring that argument :-)

  • scoobford@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think so. People need homes, but not all people can buy homes. If you can afford to maintain the property to a reasonable level without completely gouging your tenants, I think you’re providing a valuable service to your fellow citizens.

    We don’t get along, but my landlord is an old lady who bought 2-3 blocks of apartments after her husband left her a bunch of oil money. She keeps up the grounds (for the most part) and my rent has been pegged to inflation since I moved in. If people like her didn’t exist, people like me would be stuck renting from a big property company.