4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
  - bena 5y ago
    Sorry for the late reply. I actually missed this. That's on me. > There are just so many simple answers to your questions that it tells me you haven't given them much though. But your "simple answers" aren't right. And they ignore a lot of fundamental complexities. > It is one property Well. There's the loophole. If I buy two adjacent properties, why isn't that one property? Or will it be one when I buy both? If so, then why can't I just creep until I own all the property. Then, since it's my property, I can do what I want. Including selling use rights and all that business. Basically not solving the problem you think your solution solves. > 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. You understand that a lease is not ownership. It's borrowing. If I lease out office space, that person doesn't own that property, they're just borrowing the use. > If you buy in with a group to own a percentage of some property, that counts as a property you own. Why? Why as a whole? Why not as a percentage? > 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. Owning all of the acreage is an attack surface as well. It doesn't solve the problem at all. I'm not sure I'm the one who hasn't given it much thought here. You have an overly simple solution that can't handle even some of the more obvious edge cases.

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.
- bena 5y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. I actually missed this. That's on me. > There are just so many simple answers to your questions that it tells me you haven't given them much though. But your "simple answers" aren't right. And they ignore a lot of fundamental complexities. > It is one property Well. There's the loophole. If I buy two adjacent properties, why isn't that one property? Or will it be one when I buy both? If so, then why can't I just creep until I own all the property. Then, since it's my property, I can do what I want. Including selling use rights and all that business. Basically not solving the problem you think your solution solves. > 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. You understand that a lease is not ownership. It's borrowing. If I lease out office space, that person doesn't own that property, they're just borrowing the use. > If you buy in with a group to own a percentage of some property, that counts as a property you own. Why? Why as a whole? Why not as a percentage? > 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. Owning all of the acreage is an attack surface as well. It doesn't solve the problem at all. I'm not sure I'm the one who hasn't given it much thought here. You have an overly simple solution that can't handle even some of the more obvious edge cases.