view the rest of the comments
Terrible Estate Agent Photos
Terrible photos listed by estate agents/realtors that are so bad they’re funny.
Posting guidelines.
Posts in this community must be of property (inside or out) listed for sale which contains a terrible element. “Terrible” can refer to:
-
the photo itself (finger over the lens, too far away, people in the shot, bad Photoshop, etc.)
-
the property (weird layout, questionable plumbing, unsound structure, etc.)
-
the interior (carpeted bathrooms, awful taste interiors, weird mannequins/taxidermies/art, inflatable pools indoors, etc.)
-
the actual listing itself including unusual descriptions and unrealistic pricing. However, this isn’t a community to discuss the housing market in general. This is a comedic community - let’s keep it light.
-
Photos can be sourced from anywhere and be any age, but please check they haven’t already been posted.
-
Censor any names/contact details of private individuals.
-
Mark the post NSFW if it includes nudity or sensitive content
Rules.
This community follows the rules of the feddit.uk instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:
- Be civil, remember the human.
- No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name-calling.
- Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
- Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum.
- Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
- Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
So what is your contention? That people should just say that land doesn't cost what it actually costs? I don't understand.
Well it would be nice if people wouldn't participate in the charade as a get rich scheme. Or if land had some kind of flat price or homes... That'd be nice.
But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?
Either way, let's say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don't understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn't get it changed.
Why? Because it's nicer to look at? Who's deciding what's nice to look at anyway? The dirt lot shouldn't be near a dangerous industrial area to begin with. It's just more of the same wealthy land owner maximizing profits at the risk of a poor person's health.
Because shelter shouldn't be a commodity. It shouldn't be a form of financial growth or security. It's a need, a requirement. Normalizing it as I've called it keeps shelter unavailable for some and a hindrance to others all to keep landlords rich. Talking about it as "just how it is" continues the cycle.
I don't think this conversation is happening in good faith. I wish you the best.
I'm not sure what you mean by good faith, but ok