• samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    So get at least a little money but lose the property, or let the property burn down out of spite so nobody gets it. You’d still own the land it’s on, right? Decisions, decisions…

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I guess it depends on if you have enough resources to rebuild or not. I don’t think insurance existed back then.

      The first option is bad but at least some of your stuff is saved. It depends on if anything was irreplaceable, but then you got to pay this ass clown rent.

      The second one is when no one wins, but if you have resources then just rebuild. If you have nothing then sell a plot of land for cheap, but still have nothing from the fire.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Yeah, saving your stuff from the building is a pretty big motivator since he’s only buying the property, not everything in it. I’m sure he got a lot of takers.