Maybe its community driven

If Bills house gets flooded, we all just put in overtime to help Bill pay for damages

So what happens if I murder a family of 5 and decide to live in the property they previously lived in?

You'd be sent to a rehab facility,

which would become your property since you live in it 😁

the biggest issue with landlords is how the concept is instilled in western countries; it's a mostly parasitic relationship, because for the most part the priority is always on the side of the provider rather than the tenant. which is one thing in and of itself, but most of the times the providers dont even truly own their property. they just get a mortgage from a bank for a property without actually owning it then pay the mortgage payments by matching the equivalent rental values. its the biggest scam ever, it's just yet another way for banks for spread their ownership over the rest of the country and diversify their wealth.
the relationship becomes bank-landlord instead of landlord-tenant, where the ultimate protection is on the bank (if a landlord defaults or forecloses, the bank gets even more money/assets anyway), and then secondly on the landlord (there are more protections in place for a landlord to get their money). if there were more decentralized protections for tenants and less involvements of banks the concept wouldn't be the end of the world.
say what you will but under feudalism there was at least in theory a theoretical idea of mutuality. so congratulations to the banks, who have somehow created an even more unfair system than feudalism

Why do people always bring up the most absurd examples in these situations, TV's fried our brains

more unfair in one sense but def. not completely

a new luxury apartment building has finally finished construction

who gets to live there?

Everyone

Luxury probably wouldn't exist in Synopsisland

im being a bit exaggerator and im not advocating feudalism obv, just saying theoretically peasants in a feudal system were more mutually benefited in a hierarchy than tenants are benefited by a landlord. like there was a well defined mutual exchange in a feudal pyramid of what each class mutually received and gave to each other class; it was symbiotic in that the system was just on reliant bottom up (food production) as it was top down (resource distribution).
modern pseudo-feudalism throws a wrench in that because tenants are legitimately worth less than serfs because not only are they replaceable but because the benefit is ensured to every one in the hierarchy except the tenant (i.e. bailouts, loan assurance, gov-backed loans, lease guarantees, etc.), the tenants recieve benefit (shelter/utilities) at their own expense while the above castes recieve ultimately the benefit regardless

On some time-share scam s***? ​

I'd agree. The abusive aspect of this system vs feudalism though is less severe on average still; those who meet certain levels of income are afforded a lot of options of spaces and landlords. It's the poorer people who don't have options that get screwed over the most and show us the problem of no renter protections. Under feudalism though there are no options to live elsewhere.

Who tf cares

people who are alive and functioning in society care

families looking to relocate, young adults ready to move out, students looking for near campus housing

it's a brand new building with 150 available units. who moves in? is it gonna be like black friday and everyone rushes the building and each apartment belongs to the person who claims it first?

Like I said I'm not really advocating feudalism, its an obviously flawed system because as you said the lack of mobility creates a theoretical issue with its class relationship. i think in general what pisses me off the most about the modern system is like, if a king was incredibly stupid under feudalism, right, and did something like starve his peasants, the king suddenly wouldnt have any source of food, he'd screw over the entire upper classes of the pyramid. meanwhile, if a modern financial institution screws over its clients, it legit doesnt matter, they basically get rewarded for it because they get the money they stole, the money guaranteed to them anyway the clients would have paid because of financial laws, and to top it off the fine from the government is often even less than the money they made breaking the supposed law. not to mention the reinvestment of money the banks have since the government matches bank income anyway means they have no real responsibilities with the money you give to them

Or maybe perhaps those units would be distributed on the basis of need

I don’t think it’s super absurd 🤷🏼‍♂️
Some s*** like that happened in my nbhd a few weeks ago

S*** post on KTT2

Very true there is little accountability for financial institutions like the bad loan lenders who are predatory with their rates/targeting low income people and the other investors/banks who buy the loans. The ones who buy the debt are so far separated from the tenants/renters they don't care.

Which is due to corruption. Not the concept of the system itself.

The senate needs to modernize, they move at the same pace they did in 1890.

I mean the securitization of housing debt came before the corruption, without regulation to keep up in the 80s - 2000s bad incentives were created within the system that led to our issues.

Yea it's a policy thing but the system did birth it.

This thread is still going

if this was KTT 1 this would be like 80 pages