4 ms·
Allow squatting in buildings that are unoccupied for more than 6 months. That way even the super rich are required to actually have someone live in their unoccu
by smutticus 12y ago
Allow squatting in buildings that are unoccupied for more than 6 months. That way even the super rich are required to actually have someone live in their unoccupied buldings. If they buy them and live in them then fine, but if not they need to find someone to put in them.
You can't stop people from buying property, and you probably shouldn't. However, you can force them to use it.
- woah 12y agoHow do you decide who gets to squat there? Cronyism? Fist fights? Lottery?
- RockyMcNuts 12y agoWell, you could just have a higher tax on residences not used by someone as a primary residence. Or basically give a tax break/rebate when someone claims it as a primary residence. Which NY already does, actually.
- smutticus 12y agoFirst come first served. And if you leave your squat unattended, someone else can take it. The point is to incentivize rich people to put someone in their building. Not to divy up unused buildings among the homeless. There are tons of details that would have to be worked out with this idea. But luckily many european nations have been allowing squatting for decades, so there are lots of case studies, and legal examples to draw from.
- DanBlake 12y agoThat should be a great outcome for soldiers who go over seas and have to leave their place vacant. Or people in the hospital. Or people that work on long haul shipping jobs. Breaking and Entering is exactly that: A crime that should land you in jail. If you want free housing, go get section 8- Thats what its built for.