• 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    No person should be allowed to own more residential property than they’re realistically need for living.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Do you allow couples to own two houses then? How do you prevent two people living together from not owning a second house to rent?

      Also, you’d be surprised just how little a person needs to live in lol.

  • snake_cased@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    Landownership is wrong all together.

    If you think about it, it is completely absurd, why anyone assumes the right to ‘own’ a piece of land. Or even more land than the other guy. Someone must have been the person to first come up with the idea of ownership, but it is and was never based on anything other than an idea, and we should question it.

    After all inheritance of landownership is a major cornerstone of our unjust and exploitative society.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      People like the idea of the stability ownership offers. You can’t be kicked out of your house or off your land you own because your income dropped out lost a job. How would you suggest this stability is maintained?

  • ruplicant@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    no real estate taxes for the first house owned, heavy and progressive taxes starting on the second, is an idea

    companies get called people all the time, i’m starting to believe it, but i still think they don’t need shelter, so they shouldn’t be able to aquire a basic human need

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    One to four units should only be owned by people and the owner should have the obligation to live in it or there should be a radius around their property in which they can’t own a second one.

    Five to eight units should only be owned by well regulated corporations with the fiscal responsibilities this implies. The alternative would be co-ops.

    Nine and more should be under a non profit state corporation that charges rent based on trying to break even only (that’s how road insurance for people works around here, price is adjusted based on the previous year’s cost to the corporation, it’s way cheaper than private equivalents elsewhere in the country).

  • Bappity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I wish every corporation buying residential properties a very haven hills alabama

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Wait how can they? Wouldn’t them being able to buy it not make it “residential” anymore?

    Cause a hotel is not a residential property.

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Hotels used to be where you lived if you were young and semi-transient. This worked because AirBNB had not yet been invented.