Most lawyers will draft you a letter for a small fee if you want actual legalese in your rejection letter.
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
36 points (100.0% liked)
Actually Infuriating
981 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Do you need to actually write a formal legal letter to revoke consent? Why not just write "I revoke consent" on the signature page? They cannot say that they did not get the notice.
Also, are there any housing lawyers in your area who can give you a free consultation to tell you if the clause is permissible?
Its all electronic, there's no way to add a note to the page. From what I've seen on the web, it's totally legal. I went ahead and signed it. It'll be 2 weeks before I actually move in, at which point I'll give them the notice.
"Renting" needs to die in a fire. Landlords are completely out of control.
Never rent. Always buy. If you can't afford to buy a house, buy a used camper, or a van, or couch surf, or buy a gym membership (for access to shower) and live in a car for 6 months until you can upgrade.
Buy once, and the equity you build in that first home follows you around for the rest of your life. Oh, you might want to move in a year or two? Bridge loan for the down payment on your new home, paid off from the sale of your old home. Banks love lending to existing homeowners.
Never rent. Landlords are scumbags.
Edit: Wow. ITT: Landlords, and people who like buying houses for landlords.
Ill just live on the street until ive saved 50k. Gotcha
20% down is $200k here, for a 1921-built fixer (ie needs new everything, incl service laterals (honey! Get the backhoe!)).
Correction: the 1924 bungalow on a postage stamp with water damage remediation partly done but habitation permit revoked due to toxic black mold that will require a complete studs-in gut to remediate, that went for 1.6m 3 years ago. So your 20% down is gonna be $320k, and fixing costs will be a few dozen grand on top.
Update: no remediation, unsure whether it's considered habitable, and now they're renting at least one half of it.
No worries, just do what Rivalarrival here suggests and buy a gym membership! All of your survival needs are met my friend. You're one small but important step to saving that 200k plus taxes, fees, commissions, and the other tiny things
Buying doesn’t make sense if you’re not sure that you’re going to stay in an area very long. The ability to leave after a set period without being trapped by the whims of the housing market can be very valuable in certain circumstances.
For that specific scenario, a "Land Contract" is the ideal option. (It might go by a different name in your jurisdiction, but it's called a "Land Contract" where I'm from.)
A land contract has a fixed monthly payment for the life of the agreement: No annual increases. No down payment. For the first three years, it functions almost identically to traditional rent. If you leave before three years are up, the property transfers back to the "landlord", and you receive no equity. After three years, it automatically converts to a private mortgage, with your past three years of payments being considered the down payment.
So, you have all the benefits of renting, (in that you can leave on short notice, and need no money down), plus the benefits of ownership if you do stay long term.
Again: Renting needs to die in a goddamn fire. It is pure exploitation.
Are you upset at renting because you cant commit tax fraud like you want to for a home?
I both agree and disagree. I know its not a popular sentiment in left-leaning spaces, but for myself, I prefer renting. Landlords and investors are out of control, yes, and its ridiculous that renters have to spend more money and don't get the benefit of asset ownership. But home ownership is more than an asset, it's labor and responsibility, and I don't want it.
it’s labor and responsibility, and I don’t want it.
Condominiums appreciate similar to regular property, and you pay a monthly fee for someone else to handle the upkeep and maintenance. Your particular needs are far better met with a condo than a rental.
Condominiums appreciate similar to regular property
Not always true. I bought a condo in 2021 since that was all I could afford within commuting distance from work. My condo has actually lost value in that time, while SFHs in the area have become even more expensive. I hate my HOA, but now I'm basically trapped here, hoping the market turns around soon so I can sell without taking a major loss. I'm ready to go back to renting.
Not always true.
Nothing is "always true", especially in the short term. Condo prices generally rise, but they occasionally fall. So do SFH. In the long term, the generalities tend to prevail.
Before you go back to renting, take a look at what you would have lost in the same time period had you chosen a rental instead.
If you can't afford to live where you're working, it might be time to look for a new job in a market with a lower cost of living. The premium you pay on costs associated with your current employment very likely negate the increased compensation for that job. Taking a pay cut can increase your net earnings and standard of living if it allows you to live somewhere more affordable.
the equity you build in that first home follows you around for the rest of your life.
This isn't even true in many countries. In Japan, houses are basically worthless after 20 years. Land value also only increases in a few areas.
youre right but its just not feasible for many people. i wish i knew of a way to help others get out of the rental cycle
Private mortgages are one way. Instead of borrowing from the bank, you "borrow" from the seller. They will typically charge a significantly higher rate than a bank, but they don't have the same requirements as a bank.
Land contracts are a sort of "rent to own" agreement with a landlord/seller. Basically, in lieu of a down payment, you rent the property for three years - at a fixed monthly payment- and the rental agreement then converts to a private mortgage with the same payment.
Both are more exploitative than a typical, commercial mortgage, but much less so than any sort of rental agreement. With either option, as soon as you qualify for a cheaper, commercial loan, you can retire the private mortgage.
AirBnBs, monthly rate hotels will probably take off if renting is banned. Group living with randos might be fun.
- In Vancouver Canada, I could get a 1 bedroom condo near where I live, smaller than my current apartment, for $500k, put 50k down, then get a 25 year mortgage at 5%. Houses near where I live start at $1.2 million, probably could get a house for $700k elsewhere further out but in the same city. My expenses would be:
- $2900/mo for the mortgage (on average $1000/mo of that as interest)
- $400/mo condo maintenance fees
- $150/mo in property tax
- $50/mo insurance (assuming it's the same)
- Realtor fee?
Whereas renting costs me:
- $1900/mo rent (~$2500 if you average a 2.3% increase over 25 years, assuming I live there that long, max increases are regulated here)
- $50/mo insurance
- $950 deposit
So all said and done, I pay $3500 per month to get ~$1900/mo in equity stuck in one asset, vs. $1950/mo spent with $1550/mo (for the first years), left over for spending or investing, and no mortgage debt. That's a $350/mo difference which I think is reasonable to go either way. I am on good terms with my neighbours and connections with local tenant unions, if landlords try to mess with us.
Where are you at? Sapperton/RCH is near $5/sqft/mo rent, and we looked at loghead mall too for older buildings and still $4.25/sqft/mo. It's brutal !
I don't want to get too specific, but somewhere between the Burrard Inlet, False Creek and the Fraser River. Yes it was tough and I feel like I lucked out a bit.
You missed the important considerations, so I'm going to ask you to go ahead and recalculate.
Rent increases annually. Go ahead a pick a reasonable percentage you can expect for that increase.
Mortgage payment does not increase (at least the principal and interest part of a fixed-rate mortgage does not. Taxes and Insurance might, but they are a tiny part of the total payment).
The value of a home reliably appreciates in the long term, but your loan payment is based on the value at the time of purchase, not the continuing, increasing value of the property. Historically, the rate of appreciation is comparable to that of rental increase. So whatever reasonable number you estimated above, you should use that here as well.
I think it important to note that "Equity" != "paid principal on the loan". Equity is the current market value of the property minus the outstanding principal on the loan.
Basically, the numbers you provided might make sense for the first year. They don't make sense for the second year, or any later year in your entire lifetime.
equity stuck in one asset
This is a common and valid concern, but it is a seriously overblown one. A Home Equity Line of Credit offers access to that equity with much better terms than a credit card. Banks love lending to homeowners.
Added info as requested. Averaged over 25 years it's $600/mo more but still nothing crazy.
I moved here from across the country on about a 2 week notice, and booked 3 weeks in a motel but ended up staying with a relative, while looking for a place. I don't know if I would be able to close a sale and move in that quickly depending on the market.
Again I grant there are obvious benefits to homeownership, but not many have $50k+ lying around (those with parents who have that money lying around have bought houses for their kids), and so I wouldn't say renting needs to die in a fire. Homes have been assumed to be a perpetually appreciating asset but that's what has attracted private equity and speculators so I really think that assumption needs to die first before renting.
By your stated numbers, your net expenditure is $1600/mo in housing expenses when you buy, and $2500/mo when you rent. $1000 in interest, $400 in condo fees, $200 in taxes, insurance.
The remaining $1900 of your $2900 monthly mortgage payment is effectively being moved into your savings account called "Equity". That's still yours. You may not like being compelled to transfer it to a different "account", but you're not actually losing that money, so you don't get to count it as an expenditure.
$1600/mo to buy. $2500/mo to rent.
Those are the numbers that you provided. I feel they were skewed in your favor from the start, especially since you started with a condo instead of buying something free and clear. But even your wildly biased numbers prove my point. Your numbers tell me you are paying a $900/mo premium to your landlord for the privilege of not having to move $1900/mo from your checking account to your "savings" account.
You are paying $900 so you don't have to save an additional $1000.
Yes, "savings account" is the appropriate metaphor. Again: If you need it, you can access that money with a home loan, a HELOC, a cash-out refinance, etc.
Also, you glossed over appreciation: A normal savings account earns less than 1% interest. Money market accounts earn about 3% on what you put into them. Your "equity-brand savings account" earns 2%-4% interest on $500,000. Not the $1900 monthly payments you keep adding. 2%-4% interest on $500,000 you didn't have, from day one.
Are you beginning to understand why I am so fucking pissed at the entire idea of renting?
No, I'm being fair and doing my best to steelman your argument. I rounded up my rent to $1900 and I rounded down the purchase price from $530k to $500k and rounded associated interest payments down to $2900 and as you requested applied the same timeline to averaging 25 years of rentership compared to a 25 year mortgage even if in my timeline I expect to stay for 5, probably, and you know that less goes to principal at the start of a loan term than the end. My rent didn't even go up this year despite the legal maximum being 2.3%, which I used, I think our property manager is currently slightly worried about people moving out from cooling rents. I already said ownership of even a rowhome would either be 50% more expensive or I'd have to move much further out of the city.
I can understand why you'd be upset but even after looking at these numbers, there are undeniably benefits in my opinion it's still not as big of a deal as you think it is.
As a second anecdote, buddy of mine in Toronto bought a semi-detached house in Scarborough to live in with parents' help for $1.1m, prices now are 900k to 1m, he's paying $4400/mo after needing to refinance to a 30 yr mortgage. 45-50% (averaged over 30 years) of the payments are toward interest, though at this moment 95% of his payments are towards interest. He feels stuck there.
Buddy, you're trying to backpedal $10,800 of losses per year. Further, you didn't include the same percentage of appreciation on the market value of the house. Using your 2.3% figure (which is less than inflation, and thus absurdly conservative) that's another $11,500. By renting under the terms you described, you are pissing away $22,300 per year.
They say that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. Renting has a much worse ROI than the lottery. This is why I suggested an RV, or couch surfing, or even living in a car until you can afford an RV.
With the amount of value you are losing due to renting, you could literally buy a new car (albeit an economy car) each and every year. If you pulled a $50 bill out of your wallet each and every day, and just set it on fire, you would lose less than renting under the terms you described.
for $1.1m, prices now are 900k to 1m,
Sure. He's got a theoretical loss in value of $100-200k. He presumably put down $220,000, so worst case, he still has $20,000 of value in the house, plus the payments he's made against principal. What is that house going to be worth next year? In 5 years? What would have to happen for the value of that house to stay under $1.1m for the next 25 years? Even if he had bought at the height of the housing bubble in 2008, by 2012-2016, prices had dipped and rebounded.
45-50% (averaged over 30 years) of the payments are toward interest
Yeah, that sucks.
at this moment 95% of his payments are towards interest.
That sucks more. You know what sucks more than that? 100% of payments going towards "interest", and no equity. That situation is called "rent".