this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
541 points (99.8% liked)

politics

23037 readers
4508 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An organizer speaks about collective power in the world of real estate capital.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bdjukeemgood@lemm.ee 86 points 3 days ago (8 children)

What does a strike look like? Everyone moves out? It’s not so easy to just stop renting.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago

I think an all out strike as in, not paying rent, is a very serious and aggressive option that you'd only exercise in extreme circumstances.

Unionising provides a lot of power to tenants long before going that far.

For example, as a group you can afford legal representation.

[–] TheThrillOfTime@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If enough people stop paying rent, then they have to negotiate with them as a group. They can't evict everyone.

[–] HejMedDig@feddit.dk 177 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If you stop paying, it's your problem, if everyone stops paying, it's the landlords problem

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It depends. I don't know how many rentals are mortgaged vs owned. I suspect they can evict you faster than they run out of cash.

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 74 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Most states have eviction laws limiting their power, and often part of a tenant union is a lawyer to stall

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 28 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Hi, Texas checking in. What's... "limited power"?

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Their power in Texas is huge. Dont pay rent, the landlord can seize ANY non essential possessions of the tenant. Evictions take as little as 45 days.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 2 days ago

One more reason why Texas is a shithole.

[–] Botzo@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They call it the lone star state because everyone is the star of their own movie about rugged individualism, or so I've heard.

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

No, people misunderstand.

It's a rating, not a slogan.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 2 days ago

Only because you can't select zero

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

The lone star is the rating

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay so you know how you lose electricity in the winter?

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago

I think I follow... Is my landlord Ted Cruz? Rent is my landlord's daughters' fault????

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

Shit. All we have are all these guns, gallons of stupid, and no spines. Is that what you mean by being without power?

[–] bdjukeemgood@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I suppose you could have a landlord-specific-union. If I own and rent out 3 houses then I’d just evict all 3. If I owned 50 houses, I could just obfuscate true ownership through various LLCs. If you didn’t know all my properties, you couldn’t form any meaningful union against me. Apartment complex would be fucked though.

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago

I work for a company that aggregates public data for...reasons, and I can tell you it takes just 1-2 queries to find every LLC, property, etc. associated to a person.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago

Pay rent into a communal escrow.

[–] bishbosh@lemm.ee 38 points 3 days ago

Rent strikes exist and have worked. The realities of evicting everyone is slow and costly legal process that can be disrupted in various ways. The point is to make it so costly that ceding to the tenant union's demands become the better choice. There is a book Abolish Rent that goes into some tenet union victories and lessons can be learned from them.

[–] Novocirab@feddit.org 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Besides what other people already answered here: Solidarity will also go a long way. Workers in the old days faced the same dilemma: When they go on strike, will they lose their job? A lot of them did. Solidarity saved them and made the movement work.

In the context of housing, solidarity can take the form of organized people in a town agreeing upfront: "If folks from one house get evicted, they can move in with us." Of course this requires a lot of trust—just like the person in the article says. And whenever it should come to this, it will be costly and inconvenient, even burdensome, for everyone involved. Just like filling a strike fund from already low wages was. In the end it worked.

Without solidarity, we are defenseless.

[–] cravl@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Stop paying, same as any other boycott? I've done this thought experiment before, and while I think tenant unions are possible (and very much needed), they definitely aren't as simple to implement as labor unions.

To start, people would need to live more minimalistically so that "just moving out" can at least be a (last resort) tool in the union's toolbox. This makes tenant unions antithetical to consumerism, a quality not shared by labor unions.

To really thrive, tenant unions would also require people to actively know and interact a lot more with their neighbors, again fighting the trend of increasing social isolation and complacency caused largely by corporate (read: for-profit) social media.

Personally, I want to see a sharp increase in co-living (a.k.a communal living). That would greatly lower the buy-in threshold for tenant unions to really take off, not to mention all the other mental, social, financial, and environmental benefits.

100 people can pool their money together and hire a really good lawyer. 1,000 people could destroy a property management company. $20/month per household would add up fast.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Why is it called a strike? Why do we call it that and band together? If you know, you'll know what all unions should be doing in this Age of Terror