• tinfoilhat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    What if we make it illegal to own more than 2 residential properties. Yes, 2. Why 2? Because it won’t pull votes away from assholes with a summer house.

    AND let’s make it illegal for corporate entities to own livable units, and force them to sell via eminent domain within 180 days.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      The politicians to make such a law probably have at least 3 residential properties. One regular home in their state, one close their job in Washington and one for recreation.

      Anyway it wouldn’t solve the issue. It would likely just create an illegal market.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        The one in Washington DC is rented and paid for by taxpayers. It’s part of the perks of being a politician.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Are you sure about that? If that’s true, it’s very new:

          Under the new system, lawmakers can get reimbursed for hotel stays as well as utilities and insurance for property rented or owned in the capital. Members who bought property will not be able to claim reimbursement for principal or interest on their mortgage, but rental costs will be eligible to claim. The daily rate is capped at between $172 and $258, depending on the month.

          https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/07/house-finalizes-expenses-plan-00090806

          • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ah ok. I might be wrong then. Normally politicians get a rental unit to live in near their place of government.

    • Landless2029@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t make it illegal. Make it unprofitable.

      Increasing taxes per property owned.

      On 3+ extra taxes and huge fine if not rented for more than 3 months of the year.

      We have an issue with comapnies and foreigners apparently buying property in cities then leaving them empty. Tax them HARD.

      Much more likely to pass a plan like that then just making things illegal.

      • TheEntity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’d say two thingies that can fit a single household each. So no, a hotel or an apartment complex wouldn’t count.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          In some areas there’s nothing but plexes available. I’d say one plex=one property. Even if it has multiple units.

            • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              There is some advantages to renting sometimes. I don’t think all properties should be for ownership only.

              If you have to stay somewhere temporarily for a few years and intend on eventually moving, maybe you don’t want to go through all the hassle of buying a property. Renting is a simpler solution.

              Or if you don’t want to be responsible for your residence, its maintenance, fees, taxes, etc. and rather let someone else take care of it, you can rent and let the landlord take care of everything.

              Of course, capitalism and greed completely fucked up the whole system. Without strong regulation, there’s going to be abuses by anyone driven by greed.

              Not all landlords are rat bastards. Some actually do care about their tenants and their well being and comfort. Just as there are tenants who just wreck everything in their residence and make a living hell for their neighbors and landlord.

              I’ve been on both sides. I rented for nearly 10 years and had to deal with an asshole landlord at the beginning. The new landlord kept my rent the same for 8 years because she didn’t want to lose me since I was a good tenant who took care of my home. When my girlfriend and I finally moved in together, she kept her condi and decided to rent it in case our relationship didn’t work out after moving in together. And she’s had some awful tenants who destroyed her place. Right now she has good tenants and we’re doing our best to provide them a comfortable living space while being fair. We’re not looking to make profit off the tenants. Hell she’s even renting lower than what it actually costs to keep the place! Losing a couple of thousands per year on taxes and condo fees and replacing furniture when it breaks.

              But, I gotta say, the rental market is plagued with greedy sociopaths and it’s hard to feel any sympathy towards any landlord.

              • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You can still live on a property you don’t own without having a landlord. Housing cooperatives are a collective ownership of the property where you elect a property management board from the residents and pay a membership due for living there. There is no profit or excessive rent because it’s all money that belongs to you collectively.

                • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Have you ever lived on a co-op?

                  In a co-op, you are a partial owner of the property. You still have to go through all the hurdles to get a mortgage, but it’s not difficult. Plus you have to deal with the risk of other co-op members defaulting on their loan. And you still have to participate in the maintenance and responsibilities. It’s not as simple as just renting a place.

                  https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-buying-a-co-op-property/

                  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Not all co-ops function that way. There are co-ops in my city exactly as I described. The process is even similar to applying to an apartment.

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, you can still own ONE hotel. The reason why hotel prices are so high in the US is because of the Patel Cartel.

          • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            They own a bunch of chain hotels (Best Western?), and fix prices. The US has among the highest rates for hotels in the developed world. I recently went to Germany and for the same price I got 4 star amenities for what I’d pay for a very basic motel.