Just for discussion’s sake, if I rented out a garden shed that was on the other end of my property through a real estate, the problems the tenant faced would pale to my own because I’m not there and experiencing it. Just that degree of separation, even though I’m an empathetic person, would lessen it somewhat.
We need to abolish real estates and form a legislative body that accepts all rentals into a pool with set standards (within reason), rent values etc. The Body takes a percentage just like a real estate does but then puts the money back into investigating and enforcing the standards of build and doesn’t buy BMWs for the Agents to get around in. If the owner can’t meet the standards, they are dropped out of the rental pool until fixed or they have to sell (if they can’t fix it or don’t want to - their choice) and an owner-occupier takes on the issues. The Body could also handle temp stays like airbnb and manage the amount allowed in an area by taking a higher percentage by allowing it in the pool.
We had a body like that down in Tas called “Housing Tasmania”. Then the stupid government decided to sell off most of its housing stock and now we’re left with a years long waiting list for those who need housing while they scramble to build more stock.
They used to own and manage houses. It was focused towards providing housing for the most needy and I think it worked quite well for its stated purpose. I mean there was always a bunch of news stories about people trashing those houses but those people would’ve trashed any house they rented. At least Housing Tas had a team of maintenance personnel that could fix it back up.
They used to have neighborhoods of them but others were just dotted about the place to avoid the slum effect (no offence intended). You can ID them in parts of Brisbane by the housing style, they were built different than every other house in postwar neighbourhoods.
So, yeah, that would be good but an expansion that every landbastard has to join up to and every renter joins the scheme, not just the disadvantaged. Real estates contract to just selling.
It would actually work better for most investors to have something that worked like this, but which pooled resources to buy multiple homes instead of one owner for a whole house. A single house is not great as your only/main investment - it can’t be sold quickly and you can only sell the whole lot, so if you need to sell at a bad time you lose, and you can’t easily free up a part of your capital. Either a housing investment fund you can buy shares in, or buying shares of a single house (like people do with racehorses) would be a better investment choice for most people.
I like the idea and pooling of resources. I don’t like the idea that housing is an investment (it shouldn’t be) and I don’t want to see groups (however well-intentioned unless strict regulations apply) take over swathes of property. There needs to be a limit to house ownership I feel.
That you could get horse racing to relate to home ownership and make it make sense is really troubling!
There are already tons of ETFs that specifically invest in real estate both commercial and residential. I personally recommend anyone who wants to get into real estate investment to buy into those ETFs instead. That way they make all the trials and tribulations of landlording Someone Else’s Problem. I have yet to have anyone follow my advice because “I can make a better return without a middleman.”
Just for discussion’s sake, if I rented out a garden shed that was on the other end of my property through a real estate, the problems the tenant faced would pale to my own because I’m not there and experiencing it. Just that degree of separation, even though I’m an empathetic person, would lessen it somewhat.
We need to abolish real estates and form a legislative body that accepts all rentals into a pool with set standards (within reason), rent values etc. The Body takes a percentage just like a real estate does but then puts the money back into investigating and enforcing the standards of build and doesn’t buy BMWs for the Agents to get around in. If the owner can’t meet the standards, they are dropped out of the rental pool until fixed or they have to sell (if they can’t fix it or don’t want to - their choice) and an owner-occupier takes on the issues. The Body could also handle temp stays like airbnb and manage the amount allowed in an area by taking a higher percentage by allowing it in the pool.
Oh no, socialism. I give up.
We had a body like that down in Tas called “Housing Tasmania”. Then the stupid government decided to sell off most of its housing stock and now we’re left with a years long waiting list for those who need housing while they scramble to build more stock.
Did they own the houses or manage them?
Depending on your answer, did it seem to work?
We can look at private energy generation versus public for another example too I guess.
They used to own and manage houses. It was focused towards providing housing for the most needy and I think it worked quite well for its stated purpose. I mean there was always a bunch of news stories about people trashing those houses but those people would’ve trashed any house they rented. At least Housing Tas had a team of maintenance personnel that could fix it back up.
It’s the same as “Housing Commission” homes here in QLD then - https://www.qld.gov.au/housing/public-community-housing
They used to have neighborhoods of them but others were just dotted about the place to avoid the slum effect (no offence intended). You can ID them in parts of Brisbane by the housing style, they were built different than every other house in postwar neighbourhoods.
So, yeah, that would be good but an expansion that every landbastard has to join up to and every renter joins the scheme, not just the disadvantaged. Real estates contract to just selling.
It would actually work better for most investors to have something that worked like this, but which pooled resources to buy multiple homes instead of one owner for a whole house. A single house is not great as your only/main investment - it can’t be sold quickly and you can only sell the whole lot, so if you need to sell at a bad time you lose, and you can’t easily free up a part of your capital. Either a housing investment fund you can buy shares in, or buying shares of a single house (like people do with racehorses) would be a better investment choice for most people.
I hear you and agree.
I like the idea and pooling of resources. I don’t like the idea that housing is an investment (it shouldn’t be) and I don’t want to see groups (however well-intentioned unless strict regulations apply) take over swathes of property. There needs to be a limit to house ownership I feel.
That you could get horse racing to relate to home ownership and make it make sense is really troubling!
There are already tons of ETFs that specifically invest in real estate both commercial and residential. I personally recommend anyone who wants to get into real estate investment to buy into those ETFs instead. That way they make all the trials and tribulations of landlording Someone Else’s Problem. I have yet to have anyone follow my advice because “I can make a better return without a middleman.”