3 ms·

> economies of scale, including buying materials at trade and/or bulk prices vs retail prices, ability to employ workers more efficiently across multiple proper

> economies of scale, including buying materials at trade and/or bulk prices vs retail prices, ability to employ workers more efficiently across multiple properties at once, etc. You're arguing for having professional home renovators, that works the same if the house is flipped or not. So let's choose not. > squatters You're protected from squatters when it's your primary residency. You make it sound like you'd go buy some groceries and when you're back at home your house is occupied with no recourse. No. It only becomes a legal quagmire when you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas. Nobody's having issues while their house is actively renovated and they move in as soon as it's finished.

toss1 2y ago
>>you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas So, you are saying that people who do any of those things should be subject to arbitrary confiscation of their property or rights to it? NO, that is absurd and obscene. Everyone who has a second property is not wealthy to the point where it doesn't matter. I know many people who have remote properties that they visit intermittently or seasonally, who struggled to earn and invest enough to make it possible and have spent decades working on and improving the property. In some cases, the value has increased greatly, and in others, it's still just a remote camp on a remote wild spot. Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property? Particularly, that they should be deprived of it randomly and at the whim of squatters? (e.g., if society decides that no one should be allowed to own a second property, then we should pass laws to outlaw and/or tax them out of existence in an organized way; there's no justification for arbitrary taking) EDIT, add: >>You're arguing for having professional home renovators, No, this does not necessarily mean professionals, it means anyone doing it repeatedly or at scale, including a lot of semi-pros. Professionals and trades are often involved. And once you do it a few times (I know people who have done some), you do get economies, efficiencies, and knowledge that makes things both more economical and have better outcomes than the average homeowner/first-timer can do. I still don't see the argument against flipping a house (except for bad jobs, which homeowners can also do), and certainly none that says anyone should be subject to arbitrary confiscation by squatters
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  > Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property ? Ask the Spanish government ? Otherwise most countries have adverse possession laws, the only difference being how drastic the requirements are. Spain just decided to lower the bar that much.
  - toss1 2y ago
    Yes, adverse possession laws are nothing like that Here in the US, it is typically must be "open, notorious, exclusive, and unopposed" for like 20 years before you can try for adverse possession. You certainly do not get rights just for showing up and camping for days. It's quite a different beast.

toss1 2y ago

>>you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas So, you are saying that people who do any of those things should be subject to arbitrary confiscation of their property or rights to it? NO, that is absurd and obscene. Everyone who has a second property is not wealthy to the point where it doesn't matter. I know many people who have remote properties that they visit intermittently or seasonally, who struggled to earn and invest enough to make it possible and have spent decades working on and improving the property. In some cases, the value has increased greatly, and in others, it's still just a remote camp on a remote wild spot. Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property? Particularly, that they should be deprived of it randomly and at the whim of squatters? (e.g., if society decides that no one should be allowed to own a second property, then we should pass laws to outlaw and/or tax them out of existence in an organized way; there's no justification for arbitrary taking) EDIT, add: >>You're arguing for having professional home renovators, No, this does not necessarily mean professionals, it means anyone doing it repeatedly or at scale, including a lot of semi-pros. Professionals and trades are often involved. And once you do it a few times (I know people who have done some), you do get economies, efficiencies, and knowledge that makes things both more economical and have better outcomes than the average homeowner/first-timer can do. I still don't see the argument against flipping a house (except for bad jobs, which homeowners can also do), and certainly none that says anyone should be subject to arbitrary confiscation by squatters

makeitdouble 2y ago
> Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property ? Ask the Spanish government ? Otherwise most countries have adverse possession laws, the only difference being how drastic the requirements are. Spain just decided to lower the bar that much.
- toss1 2y ago
  Yes, adverse possession laws are nothing like that Here in the US, it is typically must be "open, notorious, exclusive, and unopposed" for like 20 years before you can try for adverse possession. You certainly do not get rights just for showing up and camping for days. It's quite a different beast.