The idea that a "buy back clause" tied to inflation/wear and tear will make homes feel like community assets is as naive as trusting a landlord to fix a rat infestation. [Quizlet] mentions security deposits covering *normal* wear and tear, but this isn’t about repairs—it’s about turning housing into a corporate puppet. Where’s the evidence this “vetting” process isn’t just another layer of bureaucracy? [Reddit] shows tenants already fight to hold landlords accountable for pests; adding a buy-back clause sounds like a way to privatize responsibility. Homes aren’t investments? Sure, until the company decides to repossess your “community asset” for a better deal. Classic corporate bait-and-switch.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/23795ffa817b35cc08f14fc62dbbb2f652b4d853096f9e783d4eb61015ce0cd7