this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
85 points (92.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43898 readers
1451 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would identify people in need that are renting a home and taking good care of it. Then I would buy the home and sell it to them for $1.
I know this is pie in the sky, but look into how habitat for humanity does this. You would be causing a lot of trouble for those families.
Tax burdens for the purchase, because you're essentially giving them a lot of money. Kind of like how the people Opera gave cars to couldn't always afford the taxes and ended up having to sell the car.
Also, predatory lenders look for people in that situation and trick them into getting loans on the house to get "free" cash from the equity and then the people just immediately lose their house and end up in the same place.
There are ways to protect them from all of the above, just need a little more than just "give house to good people"
Yeah it's probably smarter to purchase the homes under a trust and then rent them to low-income people for the cost of owning the home the taxes the insurance and a maintenance fund, broken down into a group fund average with a company on retainer and the salary of three people to manage and maintain all of that.
Depending on where you are even 5 million a year worth of homes could be anywhere between 10 and 50 houses every single year added to the group.
And depending where you are and how that works out that would mean home rental prices somewhere in the $400 to $900 a month price, well below the market average, and well below what these poor people would have to spend to maintain the housing and the associated taxes and insurance fees anyway.
No surprise $15,000 roof jobs. No surprise $5,000 HVAC jobs. No surprise $800 dishwasher replacements.
All of that maintained and optimized by a fairly simple payment, and the only downside to that is that it would not directly boost the renters wealth via property value increase.
If you then put say like a 5-year cap on how long somebody could rent your property at cost (extending that optionally until their youngest kid turns 21), then that should givethe renters plenty enough time to sort out their financial situations and to accumulate wealth to purchase their own homes or to get themselves into a better position in life, and then you could pass that savings onto the next person.