• 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
      8
      ·
      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).