That or limit it to being outside a certain radius, so you can have your house in the city and a second property out in the woods for the weekend as long as it’s, for example, 50 miles away or more and then if you want a third property it needs to be at least 50 miles away from the other two and so on. Make it impractical enough that second properties are only cottages, not rental units in the same city.
Why do you think I’m joking? People should be allowed to own something out of town for the weekend if they want but they’ll think about it twice if they can’t own both a rental unit and their main house in the same city, in the end it will force them to live in their rental unit along with the people renting from them, forcing them to actually care for their property.
They won’t want to own a shit load of properties either because maintaining then will be too impractical as none of them are close to one another.
Or control the type of ownership based on the number of doors. 1 to 4 doors > private ownership. 5 to 8 doors > corporation or cooperatives. 9 doors or more > cooperatives/non profit/State corporation.
Which they are already doing everywhere in my area. I’d say we should also limit their ownership of apartment complexes. Though that’s a tougher problem to solve.
SF Bay Area, East bay. Everything is apartments. Seems like all new developments are apartments, not houses. And obviously those will be owned by corporations.
I was confused by the title at first too. It should probably be “US is on track to set a new record for homelessness with over 650K people living on the streets”.
$650k and still homeless. Housing market is out of control.
Housing should he a necessity of life. Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to own homes. Limit individuals to 5.
If corporations want to own “homes” then they can build an apartment complex.
Id say even max two houses. No one needs more than one anyways. The second can be for the rich assholes that need vacation homes.
That or limit it to being outside a certain radius, so you can have your house in the city and a second property out in the woods for the weekend as long as it’s, for example, 50 miles away or more and then if you want a third property it needs to be at least 50 miles away from the other two and so on. Make it impractical enough that second properties are only cottages, not rental units in the same city.
I can’t tell if you’re joking.
Why do you think I’m joking? People should be allowed to own something out of town for the weekend if they want but they’ll think about it twice if they can’t own both a rental unit and their main house in the same city, in the end it will force them to live in their rental unit along with the people renting from them, forcing them to actually care for their property.
They won’t want to own a shit load of properties either because maintaining then will be too impractical as none of them are close to one another.
It sounded kinda like: Let’s make people sell the properties they rent out so that wealthy people can buy vacation homes.
The idea is guaranteed to make homelessness worse, so it seems natural that someone might mock it.
Or control the type of ownership based on the number of doors. 1 to 4 doors > private ownership. 5 to 8 doors > corporation or cooperatives. 9 doors or more > cooperatives/non profit/State corporation.
The corporate bots downvoted you
Which they are already doing everywhere in my area. I’d say we should also limit their ownership of apartment complexes. Though that’s a tougher problem to solve.
What area…if you don’t mind getting bing up some of that sweet sweet privacy
SF Bay Area, East bay. Everything is apartments. Seems like all new developments are apartments, not houses. And obviously those will be owned by corporations.
deleted by creator
I was confused by the title at first too. It should probably be “US is on track to set a new record for homelessness with over 650K people living on the streets”.