• Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 months 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
        22
        ·
        2 months 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
        9
        ·
        2 months 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
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months 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
          4
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 months 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
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months 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
            6
            ·
            2 months 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.