• 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    No person should be allowed to own more residential property than they’re realistically need for living.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m just curious how we’ll define “realistic”, because someone who’s into just software programming might be satisfied with a studio apartment. I can’t live without my basement workshop however. I like to make stuff.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you allow couples to own two houses then? How do you prevent two people living together from not owning a second house to rent?

      Also, you’d be surprised just how little a person needs to live in lol.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think we need to make this literally true - we can put in a lot of wiggle room, because we just need to restrict doing this at scale

        Say, no more than 2 homes per household, 1 extra for each additional adult. You want a vacation house, or a place near work? Fine. You want to buy another house and take your time moving? Fine. You want both? Make some compromises.

        Or we could make the limit 5 per household - that would be excessive, but if they couldn’t rent them out it would still decomodify housing, because it’s people buying homes at scale that really is killing us

        From there, you’d crack down locally - if you want to live in the boonies, I don’t care if you have 5 acres. If you live in a city with a housing shortage, maybe you only get a certain square footage per person, maybe certain areas are primary residence only, or however you want to slice it