this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1115 points (86.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9375 readers
1065 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then organise the renters, let them buy the house to transform it into syndicate or cooperative housing. Social apartment construction isn't impossible.

[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The issue here is, in my country at least, the people who could possibly afford to buy one aren't wanting to live in an apartment and the people who live in apartments aren't capable of buying one.

It's not impossible, but it's also very unlikely

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the only option though. Bulldozing nature to build more cheap low density housing is not a viable plan.

[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it were the only option, it would be happening more.

Just because the other options are bad doesn't mean very much. They're still happening.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It's literally banned in most of the US, that's why it's not happening more.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What a fuckin great idea. Immediate downside is who's in charge of the bills?

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ask yourself this: if the apartment is owned by a company who is in charge of bills?

in the case witht he syndicate, the syndicate is in charge of the bills, the bills are split up among the members, this stuff all already exists btw.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago

yeah the apartment I rent, bills are already separate so it wouldn't be that different. We'd still all be paying the water company and power company. And for garbage. Like we already do.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No way, that's cool! Where in the US?

I guess I would've thought that the collective unit is in charge of stuff like property taxes, but you can't have that many names on a property deed, right? Or can you?

[–] __dev@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Around half of them are in New York: https://www.housinginternational.coop/co-ops/united-states-of-america/

but you can’t have that many names on a property deed

The coop owns the property and you as a shareholder get access to one home.

[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That seems to be what's going on The Arconia apartments in Only Murders in the Building (in New York). They have a coop board, drama over who is the president of it, people not able to pay taxes on their apartment, auntie sold the apartment, now I have to move, etc.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I only the know the version of that in Germany and Austria where the property is being held by a GmbH, similar to a LLC, whose half owned by an e.V., a registered voluntary association acting as the united juridicial person of the inhabitants and half owned by a syndicate e.V. that acts as insurance and solidarity among the syndicate and makes sure that no one can overtake and profit from the property. Inhabitants pay off rent-like loans and but can leave anytime. Rent is usually really low and acts as solidarity towards other houses.

It's called Mietshaussyndikat

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

bro a significant percentage of swedes live in housing co-ops, it's literally a normal form of housing here, you're not clever.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get that my text came off as sarcastic. I wasn't being clever.

Let me retry:

I think it sounds like a great idea but I have concerns such as, who will pay the community bills? Who will be in charge? And other related administrative duty questions.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Right, well again refer to the fact that this is a solved problem in many countries, including the US. Housing co-ops consist of a nonprofit cooperative organization that owns the building and then residents own the right to live in an apartment, which comes with a monthly fee for maintenance and voting rights within the co-op.

It's the same principle as HOAs owning and maintaining common infrastructure, just within a single building rather than a group of houses.