Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided?
|
It's an investment. It's a risk to own property. Your money is tied up in the ownership stake of the building. You aren't guaranteed to profit and you have legal liability for any number of things that could occur on the property. If you don't manage the property, then you are paying someone to do that, too. Even if you have a great property manager, you will still need to have some degree of oversight into the operations, lest the venture become entirely unprofitable.
This is why I think your gripe is more with capitalism itself and private land ownership. The "service" is the fact that they own and rent the land and there are intrinsic responsibilities and risks associated with such ownership. You don't just stumble into property ownership and reap all these benefits. You are making an investment and the money you put into it is at risk when you do so. The risk, the tying up of money, that isn't restricted to the initial purchase as you seem to be suggesting... they remain throughout the life of your ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
Would the land not have existed before he purchased it?
|
This question serves as another example of why I see your problem as a fundamental dislike of private land ownership.