While I agree, if that were a law, they would just get all residential property (except for their neighborhood) rezoned.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
1513 points (97.7% liked)
Memes
52668 readers
334 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I guess corporations are just our rulers and and we shouldn't even try to restrict them because it might make them mad at us.
load more comments
(1 replies)
My friend owns three houses, the one he lives in and two he rents. He incorporated for tax purposes. Your saying he can't own the rental property because he's now taking advantage of the tax laws?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Huh, I thought this was about corporations tearing down apartments to build offices, but apparently that's not what everyone else was thinking.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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).
Your plan cuts out normal people from the most likely reason they would own two homes, a place to live and a vacation property.
I think the simpler and easier solution would be to increase property tax rate per property owned
How? Do you own your vacation property in the same city you have your house?
Even if it was just a 30 miles radius, it would be enough to dissuade most people who own two properties in order to profit from it.
You run into a problem that you need to mitigate for this to work: qualifying for a mortgage.
A landlord can rent to you for a year--or less--and they assume the risk of you not paying and needing to evict you. Their income verification can be a lot more loose as a result. A bank is going to be in a relationship with you for 15-30 years; they want to be pretty sure that you're going to be able to meet your financial obligations for that whole time period. As a result, they're going to be quite a bit more strict about proof of income, etc.
Renting can be cheaper, too; a tenant isn't on the hook for repairs to a unit, but when I need a new roof in my house, or the water heater goes out, I get to pay every penny of that myself. Yeah, the mortgage is cheaper, but just because you can afford the mortgage doesn't mean that you can afford everything else that goes into owning a home.
You also get into weird and perverse tax and zoning incentives that can make it difficult to build any kind of affordable housing; Dems say they want affordable housing, right up until someone wants to put it in their neighborhood, then they start acting like Republicans.
Yes, the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem. But it's not quite as black and white as it often seems.
load more comments
(8 replies)
As someone who lives in a corporate owned building which is an unmitigated disaster, I agree.
If you don’t like it why don’t you move to a better building with better management?
Leases have terms. Don't victim blame.
Yes, and mortgages have obligations too, and they are generally much longer and more difficult to move away from too.
With a lease your financial obligation over the course of the contract is much lower than a mortgage.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You realize moving is a big deal, right? I could talk for 20 minutes about the challenges but the biggest one currently is that I'm extremely far from my lease's end date.