Comment by jay_kyburz
2 days ago
Yes, It should be expanded that no company can own residential property, and more importantly, each person can only own one property.
People should go find something else to invest their savings in.
2 days ago
Yes, It should be expanded that no company can own residential property, and more importantly, each person can only own one property.
People should go find something else to invest their savings in.
each person can only own one property.
You're going to need some exceptions. What happens when someone dies and leaves their house to their kids? What if someone's home is temporarily unlivable (say due to a fire or flood which requires extensive renovation) -- do they have to live on the streets?
And that's not even addressing the obvious question of what happens to tenants if there are no landlords.
The problem is supply, not distribution.
I think my suggestion would unlock a lot of supply, without expanding our cities or adding to urban sprawl.
Keep in mind, about half of all adults are married, so each couple can own two properties. One to live in, one to rent.
I imagine we could figure out some way to handle inheritance, perhaps we could give somebody 12 months to decide which house the want to keep, and which to sell.
Would that not make rental properties entirely illegal? That seems... complicated
There are people who unironically seem to want to do that.
the owner could rent out their own house and rent someone elses.
it does make sense if you want to save a nice retirement home for yourself or a place where you want to raise your children while you work and live somewhere else.
that only works with a complete loop of landlord/renters and hence doesn't help anyone rent who can't own themselves....
1 reply →
I think the idea is that nobody would prefer to rent if given a choice, and that everybody could afford to own if not for the presence of landlords in the market.
> I think the idea is that nobody would prefer to rent if given a choice
I'd wager about 25-50% of the population prefers renting. Lots of people don't want to be tied down.
Which is obviously incorrect.
Possibly but that is not the main argument. The main argument is about the lesser of two evils. Do we want to prioritize the open market of SFH ownership, or do we want to prioritize (maximize) the number of people who can own a SFH. Banning multiple SFH ownership would target the latter, with the tradeoff of a restrictive ownership path for wealthy individuals.
I figure many couples would live in one home, rent a second.
The children could have one each too, perhaps only once they reach 18.
I think there would be plenty of rental stock still.
Rental single-family homes should largely be illegal. Short-term housing should be largely limited to apartment buildings and more space-economic structures. Littering the landscape with empty houses only helps bank accounts.
Still, I'm more than cognizant that there must be huge exceptions carved out for any of these ideas.
You find it hard to believe people may want to live in single-family homes temporarily? Or live in them without worrying about maintenance?