• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Items #1 and #3 are restatements of the same issue, and #2 is a red herring.

    The problem really is just car-centric zoning.

    • Franklin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      No there’s other things that aren’t specifically car centric but are definitely a cause for undue expenditure.

      You don’t think that the firms looking to earn passive income and controlling a significant amount of the supply is an adding additional expense by adding an unneeded middleman?

      Don’t get me wrong car centric infrastructure can get fucked but I think it’s important we work on the problem from all angles.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        You don’t think that the firms looking to earn passive income and controlling a significant amount of the supply is an adding additional expense by adding an unneeded middleman?

        I think the ridiculous protectionist (for NIMBYs and the rich) laws restricting supply are the main reason their business model is so lucrative.

        If you hate big landlords and REITs, working to abolish zoning density restrictions is the best thing you can do in order to drive them to bankruptcy.

        • Franklin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I can guarantee you they would still find a way of profit on it and extract as much value as possible, that’s just capitalism’s end game.

    • whoreticulture
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      The firms thing is very real. In a local small town, the majority of rented homes are owned by the same company.