4 ms·
Exactly this. The problem is that capital is essentially globally mobile at this point. I personally support making cities for the residents of that city first
by cletus 8y ago
Exactly this. The problem is that capital is essentially globally mobile at this point. I personally support making cities for the residents of that city first and foremost. An example of this would be:
- All property ownership needs to be tied to a person as in no shielding behind LLCs for tax purposes at least (you might for privacy reasons).
- Owning a property in a city makes you a resident of that city (and country). Your worldwide income and assets are now taxable.
- ryandrake 8y agoHow about also: - A property that is unoccupied for more than N days in a year is considered abandoned and forfeit to the public. Pick an N that makes sense. We have too many “investors” just buying property (that could be used to house people) and sitting on it empty like it’s some lump of gold. Or they leave it vacant only to vacation to for a weekend per year. End this speculation and waste and prices become more affordable.
- CydeWeys 8y agoThis seems unenforceable; how do you know if a property is unoccupied, and for how long? Cletus' suggestion is more enforceable.
- frutiger 8y agoSomething like this can be (and is) done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
- CydeWeys 7y agoI don't see how that's relevant. It works on much longer time frames, and in particular, only comes into play when someone else tries to claim the property in question. If the property is merely unoccupied, no one will ever know. Implementing this law will require regularly inspecting all properties in the city to see if they are indeed occupied (and how would you tell the difference between a furnished/staged unoccupied apartment and one that is occupied?). Also, good luck squatting in a modern apartment building. You won't be able to get a keycard to even get inside the building.
- klyrs 7y agoFun fact, BC has no adverse possession law. Damn shame, I've been living next to an abandoned lot for 6 years now. I could easily afford a house -- but not the land to build it on
- yellowapple 8y agoFor single-family homes (or individual units in a multi-family property, e.g. individual condos), those rules would be a welcome addition. For commercial/industrial properties or apartment buildings/complexes, however, this would throw a massive wrench in things and cause a lot more problems than it'd solve.
- balfirevic 8y ago> Owning a property in a city makes you a resident of that city (and country). Your worldwide income and assets are now taxable. So, would I be able to become a US resident simply by buying an apartment?
- jackvalentine 8y agoThe term would be 'resident for tax purposes' an already existing category in some parts of the world that doesn't give you extra rights.
- yardie 7y agoYes. The US luxury condo market is being fueled by EB-5 visa applicants. They have to invest $450k to $1mm. That gets you a pretty nice pad.
- NhanH 7y agoThey have to invest the money into a business, or one of those regional centers. Buying a house does not get you the EB-5 visa.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoIIUC rental leasing companies are businesses. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/hudson-yards-financing-eb5-investor-visa-program-immigration/586897/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/hudson-yards-financin...
- NhanH 7y agoThe case in TFA is putting in money as investment for a business to develop housing. That is NOT buying a house.
- adrianN 7y agoMore likely you'd have to become a US resident before you're allowed to buy an apartment.
- throwaway55889 7y agoI wonder if this is what gentrification feels like when it happens to those in the middle class.