3 ms·
I suppose if local zoning laws require a property to be used for residential purposes then not using it for residential purposes would be breaking the law. Lea
by fauigerzigerk 8y ago
I suppose if local zoning laws require a property to be used for residential purposes then not using it for residential purposes would be breaking the law.
Leaving a property empty to wait for price appreciation is clearly not residential use.
- supernova87a 8y agoThat's such a gross misinterpretation of the words "use" and "purposes" in the zoning code that it's not worth replying further.
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoIt may well be a misinterpretation of Barcelona's zoning code. Apologies if I gave you the impression that I was familiar with that law. What I'm saying is that it would make sense to me if a zoning code (or other regulations) were to include a requirement to actually use the land/property for the designated purpose (if possible) or swiftly sell it to someone who will. That wouldn't compell anyone to be a landlord. In my view, such a rule would be completely consistent with the usual meaning of the words "use" and "purpose" and it would be consistent with the fine.