2 ms·

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

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
        But what if no one else in the area could afford to? More to the point, why should they be disallowed from doing so? > "store wealth" doesn't mean to buy a Taco Bell, fill it with gold bars, then board it up. Didn't say it did. I think everyone here is comfortable with the concept of real estate as an investment that appreciates in value. > It just means buying property that makes money (like a fast food franchise, residential rental, office space, pool, etc). That's not storing wealth, that's generating wealth. You also mention residential rental. You say one cannot own more than two properties. What happens when one property is massive and I build a multi-resident building on it? Is that one property or N properties? What if I just lease part of my second property to someone else? What if my residence is a rental? Or just an apartment in a multi-tenant building? Do I own "one" property or a percentage of another? And if it's a percentage, can I now own two full properties? Or will I be limited by acreage? If limited by acreage, what about farms? Are we going to be compel people to own parts of farms and lease it out to farmers just so crops can be grown? There are just so many basic problems and questions with your proposal that it tells me you haven't given it much thought.
        shuntress 5y ago
        > But what if no one else in the area could afford to? More to the point, why should they be disallowed from doing so? If someone possesses that property illegally, it would be sold in a public auction. Someone will buy the property unless it's genuinely worthless. If no one buys it, most likely the same thing that already happens with worthless properties would happen: It would be left derelict to rot until eventually public funds incentivize some developer to manage a cleanup and re-purposing of the property. > That's not storing wealth, that's generating wealth. It is both. > What happens when one property is massive and I build a multi-resident building on it? Is that one property or N properties? It is one property > What if I just lease part of my second property to someone else? The same rule applies to each of you: Own no more than one property in which you do not reside. Multi-party ownership would most likely relate somehow to cohabitation. For example: If you live with a life partner, it is reasonable to have both of your names on two properties in which you do not reside. So, in that case you would own two properties in which you do not reside but between the two of you, there is still only one non-residence property per-person. > What if my residence is a rental? Or just an apartment in a multi-tenant building? If you do not own the property, then it is not counted as a property that you own. If you reside in the property, then it is not counted as a property in which you do not reside. > Do I own "one" property or a percentage of another? And if it's a percentage, can I now own two full properties? If you buy in with a group to own a percentage of some property, that counts as a property you own. > Or will I be limited by acreage? I don't think so, no. This is probably a significant attack surface for abuse similar to gerrymandering but would be related more to zoning laws than this property ownership law. > There are just so many basic problems and questions with your proposal that it tells me you haven't given it much thought. There are just so many simple answers to your questions that it tells me you haven't given them much though.

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
      But what if no one else in the area could afford to? More to the point, why should they be disallowed from doing so? > "store wealth" doesn't mean to buy a Taco Bell, fill it with gold bars, then board it up. Didn't say it did. I think everyone here is comfortable with the concept of real estate as an investment that appreciates in value. > It just means buying property that makes money (like a fast food franchise, residential rental, office space, pool, etc). That's not storing wealth, that's generating wealth. You also mention residential rental. You say one cannot own more than two properties. What happens when one property is massive and I build a multi-resident building on it? Is that one property or N properties? What if I just lease part of my second property to someone else? What if my residence is a rental? Or just an apartment in a multi-tenant building? Do I own "one" property or a percentage of another? And if it's a percentage, can I now own two full properties? Or will I be limited by acreage? If limited by acreage, what about farms? Are we going to be compel people to own parts of farms and lease it out to farmers just so crops can be grown? There are just so many basic problems and questions with your proposal that it tells me you haven't given it much thought.
      - shuntress 5y ago
        > But what if no one else in the area could afford to? More to the point, why should they be disallowed from doing so? If someone possesses that property illegally, it would be sold in a public auction. Someone will buy the property unless it's genuinely worthless. If no one buys it, most likely the same thing that already happens with worthless properties would happen: It would be left derelict to rot until eventually public funds incentivize some developer to manage a cleanup and re-purposing of the property. > That's not storing wealth, that's generating wealth. It is both. > What happens when one property is massive and I build a multi-resident building on it? Is that one property or N properties? It is one property > What if I just lease part of my second property to someone else? The same rule applies to each of you: Own no more than one property in which you do not reside. Multi-party ownership would most likely relate somehow to cohabitation. For example: If you live with a life partner, it is reasonable to have both of your names on two properties in which you do not reside. So, in that case you would own two properties in which you do not reside but between the two of you, there is still only one non-residence property per-person. > What if my residence is a rental? Or just an apartment in a multi-tenant building? If you do not own the property, then it is not counted as a property that you own. If you reside in the property, then it is not counted as a property in which you do not reside. > Do I own "one" property or a percentage of another? And if it's a percentage, can I now own two full properties? If you buy in with a group to own a percentage of some property, that counts as a property you own. > Or will I be limited by acreage? I don't think so, no. This is probably a significant attack surface for abuse similar to gerrymandering but would be related more to zoning laws than this property ownership law. > There are just so many basic problems and questions with your proposal that it tells me you haven't given it much thought. There are just so many simple answers to your questions that it tells me you haven't given them much though.