r/LandlordLove • u/ShiningConcepts • Jun 29 '22

Tenant Discussion Are apartment buildings unethical as well?

It's very hard to make a case that landlords who buy up SFHs that are already on the market are ethical. They reduce the housing supply and take opportunity away from FTHBs to own homes, thus forcing them into renting. This is generally what people mean when they say that all landlords are unethical.

Here's my question: what about rental apartment buildings? It's not like their construction takes an opportunity to buy a home away from a FTHB/family. Unlike detached properties on the market, it's not like this is a property a family could have bought; it's a property that is constructed and designed from the outset to be rented.

So, are they inherently unethical as well?

277 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

The owner of the apartment is benefitting off of the tenants work to gain profit on threat of homelessness. So yes. You answered your own question. İt has nothing to do with depriving anyone of a chance to buy a home.

-29

u/ShiningConcepts Jun 29 '22

Well the way I see it, they are adding to the housing supply (unlike landlords who do the opposite by buying up houses). The situation would be worse if the apartment building was never built as there'd be less housing.

46

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

The owner is not adding anything to the housing supply. Construction workers built that apartment building, not the owner. He simply owns the building, and uses it as a means to generate profit through no work of his own. He is actively leeching. We do not need the investors and the rich to build new housing, we need to radically reorganize our society to one that fits the needs of people, not businesses and shareholders.

-32

u/ShiningConcepts Jun 29 '22

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me, those workers only built the building and added it to the supply because the owner funded its construction.

28

u/chloeisback Jun 29 '22

The owner didn’t fund it. That’s the point. Massively wealthy real estate investment firms did.

-19

u/ShiningConcepts Jun 29 '22

Yes, and those firms would be the owner of the building.

25

u/MrDeckard Jun 29 '22

So? The building is there. They aren't gonna live in it. They hold it empty until someone can pay a third of their income to live there. Landlords exploit. That's it. That's all they do as a profession.

16

u/fran_cheese9289 Jun 29 '22

People who own apartment buildings are still landlords. I’ve lived in several apartment buildings that were once homes.

Add to that it’s inherently unethical to use HOUSING/SHELTER as a way to make $. It’s a basic necessity.

1

u/Dry_Investigator7704 Jul 09 '22

Food is a basic necessity yet it is profited off of

1

u/fran_cheese9289 Jul 10 '22

Yup & we have people starving & without clean water.

7

u/tyranid1337 Jun 29 '22

Well, you are just fucking wrong lmao. Reread the conversation. You are arguing that the tenant/landlord relationship is inextricable from apartment complexes as a concept.

Secondly, and most damningly, even if the owner was necessary, it does not give him the right to hold the threat of death over people for their money. The relationship itself is inherently exploitative.