this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
366 points (98.4% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9776 readers
341 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (13 children)

$650k and still homeless. Housing market is out of control.

[–] Gypsyhermit123@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Housing should he a necessity of life. Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to own homes. Limit individuals to 5.

If corporations want to own “homes” then they can build an apartment complex.

[–] Surp@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Id say even max two houses. No one needs more than one anyways. The second can be for the rich assholes that need vacation homes.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That or limit it to being outside a certain radius, so you can have your house in the city and a second property out in the woods for the weekend as long as it's, for example, 50 miles away or more and then if you want a third property it needs to be at least 50 miles away from the other two and so on. Make it impractical enough that second properties are only cottages, not rental units in the same city.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can't tell if you're joking.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Why do you think I'm joking? People should be allowed to own something out of town for the weekend if they want but they'll think about it twice if they can't own both a rental unit and their main house in the same city, in the end it will force them to live in their rental unit along with the people renting from them, forcing them to actually care for their property.

They won't want to own a shit load of properties either because maintaining then will be too impractical as none of them are close to one another.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It sounded kinda like: Let's make people sell the properties they rent out so that wealthy people can buy vacation homes.

The idea is guaranteed to make homelessness worse, so it seems natural that someone might mock it.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or control the type of ownership based on the number of doors. 1 to 4 doors > private ownership. 5 to 8 doors > corporation or cooperatives. 9 doors or more > cooperatives/non profit/State corporation.

[–] Gypsyhermit123@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

The corporate bots downvoted you

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which they are already doing everywhere in my area. I’d say we should also limit their ownership of apartment complexes. Though that’s a tougher problem to solve.

[–] Gypsyhermit123@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What area…if you don’t mind getting bing up some of that sweet sweet privacy

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

SF Bay Area, East bay. Everything is apartments. Seems like all new developments are apartments, not houses. And obviously those will be owned by corporations.

load more comments (9 replies)