4 ms·

Here's where the lawyers will get you. What counts as "own"? What counts as "property"? What counts as "reside"?

bena 5y ago
It's even simpler than that. What about workspaces? What about shopping areas? Entertainment? There are lots of pieces of property that aren't residential that are owned.
- shuntress 5y ago
  > What about workspaces? > What about shopping areas? > Entertainment? What about them? > There are lots of pieces of property that aren't residential that are owned. Agreed.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >What about them? who's going to own them? are they not property?
    - shuntress 5y ago
      They are property and people will own them. I don't think I understand the point of these questions unless you misread my original statement. I have edited it to add some clarification.
      - bena 5y ago
        So you can't franchise now? The problem with your solution is that it's just a different problem. We essentially want to forbid "bad" ownership. But it's hard to define "bad" in a way that doesn't either trample over "good" or "benign" ownership or makes it so subjective, it's pointless.
        shuntress 5y ago
        Isn't that how franchising already works? It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" ownership. It's about limiting the wealth-storage potential of real estate and promoting more decentralized/egalitarian access to property.
        bena 5y ago
        Franchising isn't just licensing out the brand. I can't own two Taco Bell locations unless I live in one. And forget a third. And once you get into trying to figure ways to allow for that, you've created loopholes for people to exploit. Wherein they'll be technically within the rules while violating the spirit. > It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" ownership. It's about limiting the wealth-storage potential of real estate and promoting more decentralized/egalitarian access to property. In other words, using real estate solely to store wealth would be a type of bad ownership. You're trying to avoid making a value judgment so as to not have to defend the values. Or get into a discussion of whether or not we should be deciding these things on values. But it's turtles all the way down. I agree that more people should be able to acquire property to make a home. Home ownership should be within the reach of a lot more people. And I think real estate speculation for its own sake is bad. But I also know enough to know that the problem is bigger and more involved than I've given thought to. So any solution I toss around would be half-baked at best. Even if I consider everything I know. So, I recognize the problem. I agree something must be done. But I also think that limiting ownership of property to "two" is a bad solution.
        shuntress 5y ago
        > I can't own two Taco Bell locations unless I live in one. And forget a third. Yeah... that is the point. Someone else can own that other Taco Bell. "store wealth" doesn't mean to buy a Taco Bell, fill it with gold bars, then board it up. It just means buying property that makes money (like a fast food franchise, residential rental, office space, pool, etc).
        bena 5y ago
shuntress 5y ago
Yeah. Of course the actual law would be several hundred pages long and reference large volumes of existing work. Like any law. And the degree to which you believe the letter and spirit of the law are each used to counter-act each other is a separate discussion. But, to answer your flippant questions: Legally possess. Land and buildings. Physical and temporal occupation of space and time on the "property" above some reasonable threshold.

bena 5y ago

It's even simpler than that. What about workspaces? What about shopping areas? Entertainment? There are lots of pieces of property that aren't residential that are owned.

shuntress 5y ago
> What about workspaces? > What about shopping areas? > Entertainment? What about them? > There are lots of pieces of property that aren't residential that are owned. Agreed.
- gruez 5y ago
  >What about them? who's going to own them? are they not property?
  - shuntress 5y ago
    They are property and people will own them. I don't think I understand the point of these questions unless you misread my original statement. I have edited it to add some clarification.
    - bena 5y ago
      So you can't franchise now? The problem with your solution is that it's just a different problem. We essentially want to forbid "bad" ownership. But it's hard to define "bad" in a way that doesn't either trample over "good" or "benign" ownership or makes it so subjective, it's pointless.
      - shuntress 5y ago
        Isn't that how franchising already works? It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" ownership. It's about limiting the wealth-storage potential of real estate and promoting more decentralized/egalitarian access to property.
        bena 5y ago
        Franchising isn't just licensing out the brand. I can't own two Taco Bell locations unless I live in one. And forget a third. And once you get into trying to figure ways to allow for that, you've created loopholes for people to exploit. Wherein they'll be technically within the rules while violating the spirit. > It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" ownership. It's about limiting the wealth-storage potential of real estate and promoting more decentralized/egalitarian access to property. In other words, using real estate solely to store wealth would be a type of bad ownership. You're trying to avoid making a value judgment so as to not have to defend the values. Or get into a discussion of whether or not we should be deciding these things on values. But it's turtles all the way down. I agree that more people should be able to acquire property to make a home. Home ownership should be within the reach of a lot more people. And I think real estate speculation for its own sake is bad. But I also know enough to know that the problem is bigger and more involved than I've given thought to. So any solution I toss around would be half-baked at best. Even if I consider everything I know. So, I recognize the problem. I agree something must be done. But I also think that limiting ownership of property to "two" is a bad solution.
        shuntress 5y ago
        > I can't own two Taco Bell locations unless I live in one. And forget a third. Yeah... that is the point. Someone else can own that other Taco Bell. "store wealth" doesn't mean to buy a Taco Bell, fill it with gold bars, then board it up. It just means buying property that makes money (like a fast food franchise, residential rental, office space, pool, etc).
        bena 5y ago

shuntress 5y ago

Yeah. Of course the actual law would be several hundred pages long and reference large volumes of existing work. Like any law. And the degree to which you believe the letter and spirit of the law are each used to counter-act each other is a separate discussion. But, to answer your flippant questions: Legally possess. Land and buildings. Physical and temporal occupation of space and time on the "property" above some reasonable threshold.