5 ms·
At 30 days they gain rights as a tenant. There was a case years ago of someone with an AirBnB I believe where they stayed longer than 30 days and then refused
by SystemOut 5y ago
At 30 days they gain rights as a tenant. There was a case years ago of someone with an AirBnB I believe where they stayed longer than 30 days and then refused to leave claiming they had established the place as their residence.
- markdown 5y agoSounds perfect. Nobody should own more than one residence. Another family taking over is the best outcome for the community. Absentee landlords really need to be given the boot.
- nautilius 5y agoI don't understand your point at all. What's an absentee landlord in your book? A landlord who doesn't live in the place they are renting out? I would assume that's - all of them?
- gowld 5y agoA non absentee landlord lives on the same land as the rental unit.
- CompuHacker 5y agoDo you mean a contiguous, legal parcel of land or a more natural division, like valleys, mountaintops, coastlines, etc.?
- nautilius 5y agoClearly that's not what the GP means, because there would be no dilemma with someone living in a property held by a landlord for more than 30 days if the absentee landlord can just live next door.
- mehphp 5y agoWhat kind of logic is this? Nobody can save up to buy real estate for profit?
- totony 5y agoBuying more real estate than you use is hoarding. There is only so much liveable land. Out of all the things capitalism can apply to this is morally the worst.
- dcolkitt 5y agoExcept people don’t live on land. They live in homes. There’s plenty of empty land. But to house people you need to make the deep capital investment of building housing on that land. Capital accumulation requires capitalists.
- totony 5y agoThey live on both. There's a reason why cali/vancouver are so popular, it's because of their easy weather. Plus, the home you're buying is on land that's next to a bunch of utilities which are there because generations have worked towards them. Should you be able to hoard all of this (hospital, public transport, etc) just because you're "investing in housing" (which in most part is just sitting on empty houses to sell it to other people that need these utilities)? This is why vacant home ownership should be taxed to oblivion: you're profiting off something that isn't yours. The only reason the home is appreciating is because the land you're on is gaining value because it's either: - Most livable land - Has utilities - Has people living there that make the city attractive And owning a home participate in none of this without taxes. Not only that, your incentives are aligned with preventing people from building more houses so yours appreciate, which is a net negative for the city.
- LambdaComplex 5y agoBeing against the exploitation of a basic human need (i.e. housing/shelter) for profit seems reasonable to me.
- technofiend 5y agoI rented a place in Colorado for over thirty days and the owner refunded me sales tax because that was long enough to establish residency.