• Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 days ago

      Aren’t coops basically democratic condos? In Sweden we have “bostadsrätt” which are condos governed by a democratic resident association. They’re good for democratic control over housing, but they still require a mortgage and they’re still subject to market speculation. Some of the apartments can be rentals, but that still means you have a landlord, just that your landlord is your neighbors.

      Having the city or the state as your landlord seems like it would be more ideal, or at least a balance of coops and public housing.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        11 days ago

        The major benefit is that a co-op is owned by the people who live there.

        That’s still a MASSIVE improvement over outside ownership by someone who is just there to make money.

        It’s a step in a better direction, if maybe not the ideal solution.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 days ago

        For the U.S. at least:

        With condos, there’s a condo association that owns all the common areas. Then the association itself is owned by the owners of the units, and the management is elected by the owners.

        With co-ops, the unit owners directly own the common areas in common, and the management is also elected by the owners.

        Functionally speaking they’re very similar, and co-ops tend to exist in places where this legal structure predates the invention of homeowner associations (basically New York).

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        HOAs exist to maintain home resale value, and little else. They protect the “investment” of owning land and the homes on them. The laws around the practice are draconian and overreaching.

        But theres no reason a superificially similar institution couldn’t be built for equitable reasons and then only be given reasonable amounts of power.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          11 days ago

          Good luck with that…we’ve tried it since the beginning of time…those institutions invariably turn into HOA like cluster fucks of bad management.

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            I don’t know what country your perspective is based on, but if it is the US, where HOA shittyness is the norm, then yeah, that makes sense.

            But that’s not because the structure of a co-op can’t work or do good things. It’s because the culture, zoning laws and regulations over there are UTTERLY FUCKED which means real change is slow as hell to realize, since it involves changing course on decades of legislation, and convincing a LOT of minds to look at home-ownership differently.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 days ago

            HOAs are rare where I live, but we often have property management that oversees multiple units to take care of and fund common elements.

            They’re not all perfect, but most aren’t nearly as bad as what I’ve heard about HOAs.

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 days ago

              We have strata, or group ownership of the land and structure of a housing complex. Each owner owns what’s inside the walls of their apartment but the strata owns rye rest and is jointly owned by all owners. Each pays a fee to cover maintenance, upkeep and a sinking fund for major repairs. It works pretty well, for the most part.

              However there is quite an administrative burden and many homeowners dont want the hassle of doing the admin so the busybodies tend to do it and overstep their boundaries often. Many use an external company to manage it. The biggest company was just in the need today as it was fsvouring its own insurance product for all the buildings it manages. Conflict of interest for profit isn’t quite the joint ownership plan strata envisions.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                Sounds similar to where I live. The busybodies can be annoying, and fraud (etc.) can be a problem. But I won’t let perfect be the enemy of good to my opinion.

                • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  Yes, definitely. But important to not have annidealised view of outcomes either. Realistic goals and expectations in real life as in gaming.