Okay so I want to start by saying I don't really feel too strongly either way, but I have a lot of friends that do and have been hyperfocusing on reading this topic so I am using this as a way to get out all the arguements I hear as well as get more opinions.
So by definition yes I see why private property and paying for housing is wrong, anything that is a basic need to survive should be free or affordable at the least. So I can see that arguement and that makes perfect sense to me.
The issue I also see though is while in a perfect world that works, we do not live in a perfect world, we are far from it so I can also see the flaw in that arguement. As well as I have plenty of friends who are in college, travel, or just prefer renting so again I can see why some people make the arguement that landlords are necessary in todays society. There is a market and thus is being filled because some people want/need to rent.
On the other hand, I do see how it is parasitic as well. Most landlords do little to no work for large profits, aka are just exploiting people for money. So I again can see why many have an issue with them.
Once again on the other hand, I don't feel that is true for every landlord, there are some who charge just enough to make a profit themselves. Which in a capitalist society, that is the point of all things, no different from a business that buys goods and sells slightly higher like retail stores or coffee shops. (Ik production is key factor here but that is where I see upkeep compared) As well as I see the arguement that they are providing a service by giving a maintained home and upkeeping (and if they are a really good landlord/community leader they invest more into the property/area for the betterment of the people there).
But I also see people explain that the job is still doing nothing as people hire others to just do all the work for them, thus making is parasitic again, which I can understand that as well.
But I also see people explain that is still providing a service as they need to hire and organize all of that, sure the grass is mowed by a third party company, but that is still a service the landlord is providing, just not directly. As well as again they are providing a service to those who wish to rent rather than buy. Plus I've read that being a landlord can sometimes be a lot of work depending on the person.
Theres also the arguement that they are doing good for society if they make rent very affordable and actually do their jobs/be a good human being. I have a friend in college who could not afford 90% of the places he wanted to rent out near his college, then he found a good spot for a very good price and a nice landlord who very purposely made it that way because he was a student once too. Idk if this also falls into the same category, but I know a guy who owns a plaza, he owns all the land and rents out to businesses and all the stores there are extremely cheap for todays things, very nice, stores have been there forever, and everyone seems happy there and when I spoke with him, he says he charges as low as possible for rent which means the businesses do not need to over charge or struggle, so again I can see the need if doing it with a soul. (altho I don't feel business real estate falls under the same tree) but I also see plenty of stories of landlords who let people pay late or skip rent because they didn't need to charge them and understood where they are at, which yes even though being a landlord by definition (or at least owning and charging for a basic need) is wrong, is a late stage capitalist society, people like that I feel are doing good in a bad system and I can see why people should blame the system more than the people doing it if they're helping rather than hurting. I guess in this sense I view it similar to being a cop, the system is bad, but that does not mean every cop is bad and while it should be very different, we need them and if they were all good hearted things would be a lot better.
On that same note, I read how it is an issue because it takes away housing from those who need it and that gets bought up by the rich and corporations to make the rich richer. Which is definitely true and I'm glad some states are actually banning this from happening.
On that same note, I understand that is not what I am talking about, obviously no one likes 1% or big businesses, but for someone who owns a few rental homes or an apartment complex or so, I don't believe that same issue applies, again especially because some people like renting more or it fits what they need/want. And even more so with how over inflated the housing market is today which I have read that landlords are part of that reason but the only reasoning I ever read as to how is again 1% and big companies buying it all or outrageous charging which I feel does not apply on a lower level.
Another issue I see is that it causes things like gentrification and class division which is true, but I have also seen people argue against as well. (this is where I can't seem to find much research on becuase many aren't talking about these issues or aren't aware of them) The main arguements I see as to why it doesn't always lead to that is because if you charge an affordable amount for what is offered and the area, it does not lead to that. But on the other hand, if you make housing in an area or greatly improve on an area, new people will move in and that could potentially push others out. I also see people make the arguement that in todays society that is just a necessary evil and those who can afford it will come and basically what happens happens, but I just personally hate this arguement because gentrification is literally just racism capitalism incarnated so to just sweep it aside is not good. I have also read that gentrification affects the property value though so it would be in the land lords best interest to actively try to avoid this.
I've also seen some people call them evil because they sometimes have to evict people for failing to pay and in some circumstances I can understand that being wrong like if you are already very in profit or have other incomes and don't need the money, kicking someone out who is potentially struggling or whatever can be evil, but I also believe that arguement is frail because that is at the end of a day a business and they need to make their money too. Plus the tenants signed a contract and it would be no different if they took out a mortgage and failed to pay, so I understand this arguement, but I feel it is very per situation.
Now from all of this, my personal opinion I have formed so far is that in a perfect world, housing should be a free provided right, anything less is exploitation. Sadly, that is just a pipe dream here in America as again capitalist society and I believe for now paying for housing will be a thing (unless major reform happens) and in that time, I believe landlords are necessary for those who prefer that, but I believe it is parasitic if the landlords are not good ones. What makes a good landlord? Well from what I can tell, someone who does not charge over inflated or unrealistic prices, keeps general upkeep /improvements, is fair and understanding, and is aware of the community, social, and economic impacts they may have on the area and act accordingly. unfortunately, I feel many… many landlords fail to meet these standards in the US. I believe a good landlord is a necessary evil in the way the US is as of right now and while I wish things were different and better with reform around the corner, we cannot deny where we currently are at and plan accordingly and realistically.
Okay, that is the accumulation of everything I've read and heard and my generalized opinion, I'm sure there is also plenty more I failed to mention as I either didn't find it important, found little/no evidence/counter evidence and did not wish to mention it, or just forgot; but I am curious on your opinion on this matter as I an just one person with too much time online and want to know more about others experiences/opinions and why?