• Surp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      51 minutes ago

      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.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          24 minutes ago

          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.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 minutes ago

            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.