Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.

The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the "renter" (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the "owner" (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.

It's a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we're looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.

Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I'm thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.

I don’t know the details of her situation, but it’s something like in a market that averages over $1000 for housing, she rents out at below $1000. I mean to say for her properties she could choose to rent at the market rate but this would mean the people who wants to rent to, people who aren’t able to afford >$1000 for housing, would you know.. be unable to afford it.

As for barely making a cut for themselves, I’ve only known a few landlords but none who owned the house and title (without a loan with the bank). the landlords I do know, herself included most likely got 30 year fixed mortages on their properties, meaning their interest rate stays the same for 30 years.

Each month those landlords need to pay the mortage and will need to pay for repairs or repair the properties themselves. Say the mortage, due to the landlord’s credit rating is pretty good, and comes in around $800 a month. Say that on average the landlord has to pay $50 a month on maintenance. The landlord needs to charge $850 to make no money, to afford no food for themselves, or otherwise “break even”. What I’m saying here is that in this market, a property just like hers (x beds, y baths) rents out for $1200 a month. I’m saying that she’s more likely to rent her property out at $900 or $850. Although when people fall on tough times, she’ll also just waive the rent or work with them with what they can pay.

Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?

Probably not. You’re assuming that the renters have good enough credit to get a loan from the bank at the same interest rate that the landlord can, that the renters can afford a down payment (sometimes that’s $10k+ right there). Keep in mind these are the renters that could not afford a $1200 a month place themselves. You’re assuming that the bank would give them the loan in the first place. You’re assuming that the current interest rates are reasonable (at time of writing, in the US, they are not - the difference between a 3% and 6% interest over 30 years is enormous and would make their rent far greater than $1200 a month).

You’re right that there are some renters who can afford to buy her properties if she put them on the market. Those renters hypthetically live in the property next to hers with x beds and y baths and they’re looking for a place to live. She could sell the property to them, but she’d then need to evict her current tenants, and since there’s a lack of landlords like her, they will probably need to move to another town or be homeless.

There’s not a clear right or wrong answer here.

I’m a little confused by this.

They were famous for “affordable housing”

If by this you mean they were one of the cheapest places to rent in the area, then good on them. Ultimately this is what tenants need is affordability.

End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their “goodwill.”

This is where you lose me. If you’re saying they rented some of the cheapest properties in your area and they profited $12,000,000 off their tenants, then holy shit man where do you live? That must mean that every other landlord is profiting multiple times this 12mil amount, maybe in excess of $50mil per landlord.

If you’re telling me that they weren’t actually the cheapest, they just called themselves the cheapest and somehow were the most expensive, this justifies the profit more but at $12,000,000 I have to ask how many properties did they own?!

If instead you didn’t mean to say “from cashing in on all their ‘goodwill’”, just that the pair had 12million saved up and were able to make housing affordable then indeed this is amazing! Ultimately the only individuals who are going to be able to do this are people who already come from wealth, or are at least people who can afford to make a loss on their rental properties.

So, somehow I’m not sure any of those are what you meant. Can you explain? Is there a news story about these people?