Graffiti seen in Barcelona, Catalonia
-
Okay, but who. I want the name of a specific person or organisation and a link to where they said that. Because it's such a stupid statement that I'm not going to just take someone's word that someone was dumb enough to say it or thought people would be dumb enough to believe it.
oh boy, do I have some bad news for you about the stupid shit people believe
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know at least one city in France taking measures to severely limit Airbnb, because it's becoming a ghost town and people who actually work there can't find anywhere to live. The housing situation in the area is terrible.
Good for them. I already can't stand "professional" landlords that get into the business of shitting over places people need to live to maximise profit. Those who are taking over those spaces to turn them into fake hotels without the constraints are the lowest of that scum.
-
Its about the cost of living and lack of affordable housing when companies buy up or build new places just to rent them out on airbnb, that's why it says it used to be their home. Nothing to do with tourism or xenophobia.
Looks like someone didn't read the news.
-
What I don't get is why the people of Barcelona want tourists out. That's such a dumb knee-jerk reaction imho. Tourism is not the problem. In fact it's a major revenue for the city. They could use it to build affordable housing for locals. The government could put a cap on rent and similar restrictions on whatever Airbnb arrangements. If it's not more profitable to give out one's property for short term rentals then the trend will fade. If someone can explain the current anti-tourism stance as opposed to a push for alternative measures I'd appreciate it.
The government could put a cap on rent and similar restrictions on whatever Airbnb arrangements.
Not easy. They tried but don't have the authority. I think they managed for home long term rentals but not as aggressive as before.
The revenue from tourism is limited to the city. Most rentals are owned by large foreign companies, so profit goes away. Clearly not enough to pay for extra housing (one airbnb house taxes can't pay for a full new house).
Also, they are pushing away people who lived there, as the neighborhoods are focusing on tourists more and more (again, foreign investment firms who don't spend back in the city).
I used to live 25 min walking to Sagrada Familia. 8 years ago there were usually no tourists or stores focused on tourists. Now it's a very common place for tourists to stay, and prices show it.
-
What I don't get is why the people of Barcelona want tourists out. That's such a dumb knee-jerk reaction imho. Tourism is not the problem. In fact it's a major revenue for the city. They could use it to build affordable housing for locals. The government could put a cap on rent and similar restrictions on whatever Airbnb arrangements. If it's not more profitable to give out one's property for short term rentals then the trend will fade. If someone can explain the current anti-tourism stance as opposed to a push for alternative measures I'd appreciate it.
Because the people making money are not the people living there.
-
I remember when it was about renting your place for a few days when you were traveling
Do those rentals still exist?
-
Pardon the confusion. This is Lemmy, anarchism is a utopistic solution where everyone sings kumbaya and gets along, not an apocalyptic hellscape where the people with the most guns amass all power. Fortunately, there has never been a societal experiment to determine what anarchy really is, so no one has to be proven wrong.
ah, makes sense. thanks
-
This post did not contain any content.
Funny how if you remove all landlords no one loses their home.
-
Yes indeed. I think in Europe the worst is probably Lisbon, that has basically been overrun by foreigners, but that's a common phenomenon in all major cities.
that has basically been overrun by
foreigners, greedy real estate investorsThere, FTFY
-
And the corporations have spent so much time and money fighting the idea that now anarchists are now associated with terrorists amongst boomers at least.
amongst stupid boomers at least.
There, FTFY.
-
To be fair, that's not just due to corporations but also due to the mismatch in meaning between anarchist as a political movement and anarchist as a word from the dictionary. The movement covers only a small portion of what the word covers. Communicating more clearly as a movement can avoid the confusion
You mean anarchism vs anarchy.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Build. More. Homes.
We used to have enough, and then in the late 70s, early 80s they decided that if they didn't build enough, then they could make housing scarce and therefore more valuable. A big long-con, 40 years in the making.
Housebuilders would make more profit per home. Homeowners would have more wealth (even if they can't access it). Inheritance taxes could take more of a bite. Landlords could charge more. Retirements could be funded entirely by buying 2-3 houses and renting them out, and then cash in later on the full value of those homes when they'd gone up by double the interest rates.
They don't have to be amazing homes. They don't need an acre of land to sit on. They don't need three bedrooms. Kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, living room. Affordable on a quarter of a single person's minimum wage income.
-
Funny how if you remove all landlords no one loses their home.
People who can no longer afford their mortgages would disagree with you.
-
that has basically been overrun by
foreigners, greedy real estate investorsThere, FTFY
Greedy real instate investors bought everything there because there was a demand from non Portuguese people with much higher salaries than the locals.
You don't see that type of phenomenon in random towns in the Portuguese back country
-
Build. More. Homes.
We used to have enough, and then in the late 70s, early 80s they decided that if they didn't build enough, then they could make housing scarce and therefore more valuable. A big long-con, 40 years in the making.
Housebuilders would make more profit per home. Homeowners would have more wealth (even if they can't access it). Inheritance taxes could take more of a bite. Landlords could charge more. Retirements could be funded entirely by buying 2-3 houses and renting them out, and then cash in later on the full value of those homes when they'd gone up by double the interest rates.
They don't have to be amazing homes. They don't need an acre of land to sit on. They don't need three bedrooms. Kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, living room. Affordable on a quarter of a single person's minimum wage income.
you just have to make sure that the new houses aren t bought by landlords...
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think it can be generally said that the US and their success stories are a force for the bad in the world.
-
you just have to make sure that the new houses aren t bought by landlords...
You have to realise that landlords aren't the plague. They're the buboes. A symptom.
If you can take your spare money (a concept from days gone by, I know), buy a house for X, rent it out for Y a month, then finally sell it in 20 years for Z, and be 99.99% guaranteed to make more money from it than you can from pretty much any other source, then why wouldn't you?
Remove the incentive for that (homes that don't go up by more than the inflation rate), there will be no need for them to exist.
But in any case, the size of the building projects required would likely be government level anyway, and they can be the "landlord" for anyone not wanting to buy. This was called council houses in the olden days, before Maggie Thatcher killed that.
-
You have to realise that landlords aren't the plague. They're the buboes. A symptom.
If you can take your spare money (a concept from days gone by, I know), buy a house for X, rent it out for Y a month, then finally sell it in 20 years for Z, and be 99.99% guaranteed to make more money from it than you can from pretty much any other source, then why wouldn't you?
Remove the incentive for that (homes that don't go up by more than the inflation rate), there will be no need for them to exist.
But in any case, the size of the building projects required would likely be government level anyway, and they can be the "landlord" for anyone not wanting to buy. This was called council houses in the olden days, before Maggie Thatcher killed that.
While I understand your point, I don't think I fully agree with it. If house prices are connected to inflation, what is there to stop somebody from buying a house and renting it out.
The rent money is used to buy a second house and so on. The price of houses will go up, and so will the rent. But the houses themselves were bought at a lower price, so house prices going up would not have any influence on the landlord.
In the meantime the rent keeps going up, reultiyin more profit in the end.Now of there would be a taxation based on actual worth of a person. And the amount of taxation is based on the minimal income in a country...
Maybe a bit farfetched and I do not know if I explain it in a way that I get my idea across.
-
Pardon the confusion. This is Lemmy, anarchism is a utopistic solution where everyone sings kumbaya and gets along, not an apocalyptic hellscape where the people with the most guns amass all power. Fortunately, there has never been a societal experiment to determine what anarchy really is, so no one has to be proven wrong.
Google "cnt-fai"
-
You mean anarchism vs anarchy.
Same difference in day to day use.
The important discussion is often lost due to confusing semantics. Extend it to languages other than English and some don't even have two separate words. Even in English this problem arises with anarchist (person part of the movement or person who does whatever the fuck they want).
