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 th

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.