Asklemmy

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.