Kaizerdave Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I am an Anarcho-Capitalist However recently I was informed of the idea of Cooperative housing, whereby the people living in the apartments own the premises together and thus here is no top down land lord telling them what they can and cannot do. Do you guys think that it would be a good idea, and if so, could this be enacted across all aspects of the market, including food, jobs, health, police etc instead of private ownership?? (Or Semi-Private since the landlord is still technically in charge) Or is this method not able to be sustained or expanded?? Are there limits to cooperative housing? And what is bad about them?
dsayers Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 thus here is no top down land lord telling them what they can and cannot do. This is manipulative language. Land lord is just another way of saying the owner of the property. You cannot claim that property rights are valid except when that property is housing owned by somebody who doesn't live there. Just as with your property, any owner of any property can choose to dispose of it how they see fit, including letting others use it in exchange for X, Y, and Z. A potential tenant can choose to negotiate, accept, or reject those stipulations. Like any voluntary transaction, "top down" doesn't apply. It is a lateral exchange between moral equals. By day, I am the agent/maintenance man for my father's rental properties. You wouldn't believe some of the things people are willing to do in violation of their contract. You wouldn't believe the turnover rate or the overhead it takes to prepare the house/unit for the next tenant after such violations/turnover. The landlord needs good tenants every bit as much as those tenants need good housing. Anyways, I've argued (though I believe I have the minority opinion) that "joint ownership" is mythical. If nothing else, it is problematic. There are an infinite number of ways you and the so-called co-owners could disagree on how to dispense with your property. In order to attempt to arrange such a co-ownership, you'd either have to provide for every possible mutation or put something in place to resolve such disputes after the fact. Assuming the latter is something like arbitration, can it really be said that you own something that a 3rd party could dispense with against your will?
Leevan Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I don't see a problem with it if you trust the co-op. I don't see how it could be applied to anything else. Although, people can and do invest in businesses together via the stock market.
Pepin Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 If that is what some people prefer, there is nothing wrong with it. Many people aren't likely to prefer it as a problem of the commons would occur in some instances. Some people might not care to maintain the property, leaving others to have to pick up the slack. If you've ever had roommates, this ought not to be a stretch of the imagination. There is also the issue of agreement, as without full control you are not always going to be able to have your way. The problem would not be a single owner's preferences, but rather all owner's preferences. It may work out in instances where people have very similar values and goals, but people are diverse and often change. I could go on with various problems people would have with it, but a major one is that selling a co-owned house might not work out very well. What are you selling exactly, the right for someone else to live there? Is this not something the co-op must agree to? Doesn't the new co-owner have to accept all of the various rules established? How many people are going to pay a substantial amount to become a co-owner, when there may be cheaper alternatives. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be ways of dealing with this, but the risk of loss is very high, and the risk of wanting to move at some point is also pretty high. Hopefully this post isn't dumb. I think I understand the idea, and I'm certain it has worked out well for some people, but I feel like I am not understanding something.
tasmlab Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 What's the difference between this and condos where each unit in a building is owned by it's residents?
MrCapitalism Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 What's the difference between this and condos where each unit in a building is owned by it's residents? Or if the building was owned by a corporation of which every resident, and only the residents, were equal stock holders?
powder Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Or if the building was owned by a corporation of which every resident, and only the residents, were equal stock holders? I think having ownership of a single independent unit within a coop type situation has less potential headaches and disputes like the type Pepin is outlining. I recently read in the local newspaper about 3 couples that decided to share ownership of a house they are all living in. I couldn't help but imagine some of the situations that could easily create conflicts.
NumberSix Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 This is based on coops in NYC. Negatives: 1. Coop board can spend a large amount of money on building improvements and then your monthly fees go up a lot. 2. You are limited in your ability to rent out your unit. 3. You need board aproval to have renovations done. 4. There may be rules against running a business out of your home. 5. You need board approval of the purchaser to sell your unit Positive: 1. Your name is not on property deed, which helps you hide assets from IRS. (you're a shareholder, not an owner) 2. Your name not on deed gives you some privacy. 3. They are much cheaper that similar size condos.
Recommended Posts