3 ms·
I think we would both agree to temper any armchair-lawmaking with the understanding that as any rule becomes more complex it also becomes easier to abuse. But,
by shuntress 5y ago
I think we would both agree to temper any armchair-lawmaking with the understanding that as any rule becomes more complex it also becomes easier to abuse. But, with that said, I think we would also both agree that including (in this law) something like "Couples who cohabitate may jointly own no more than two properties in which they do not reside." is certainly reasonable.
Unless this was another misunderstanding and you meant to count all previously owned properties to which I would say: If you sell ownership of a property to someone else, you no longer own it.
- jedberg 5y agoWell in my grandparents case they never sold a house, they just bought new ones and then rented out the old ones which they still owned. I think it would be simple to solve though -- you can rent out any house you own in which you've lived at least five years. So you have to be a member of the community and participate in it for a while before you can be a landlord there. I think that at least gets to what you are going for.
- shuntress 5y agoSo, allowing for the limit on an individual's property ownership rights within a community to scale alongside their residence in that community? I think that makes sense and inherently circumvents the potential for abuse via inheritance as the individual who would potentially inherit the property could just be subject to the exact same limitations based on residence.