-30 No single entity or company should be able to own more than two properties. amirite?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It's over. Companies are buying entire neighborhoods.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

The rich get richer. The poor get poorer.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Welcome to the machine

by Anonymous 1 month ago

We oughta rage against it..

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Politicians will pretend to care after it's too late (it already is) and keep pandering while choking on cash from the same companies they're pretending to stand up against. They'll do nothing until the people start doing something.

by rowanfritsch 1 month ago

The issue is that people are divided. All we have to do is work together. But we will never be united.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Non-commercial zones properties should not be allowed to be used for commercial purposes by default.

by aschoen 1 month ago

Zoning should not exist.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Residences

by elliotbeahan 1 month ago

I'm sry I'm from south america so it may be some cultural mistranslations here but where ever you live you can't just make a business in your house? Like if you own a house and you want to turn the front into a small clothing store you can't do that??

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Nope, you can't just do that in places with zoning. Zoning means that in an area you can only have certain types of buildings and certain types of activities. Some of them, like keeping hazardous chemical manufacturing away from schools and houses, makes some sense. But others are less defendable (and in some cases actively classist, racist or exclusionary

by Latter_Cranberry 1 month ago

Thanks for the info. I guess it works for the city layout you guys have but it, and this goes without any judgment, sounds super weird to me. Like we have so many small to medium shops and stores here that you can go and buy pretty much anything you would need in your normal day-to-day life that it really doesn't generate any nuisances or stuff like that, plus you'd have to be beyond lazy to use your car to guy buy stuff here. Like, if i want to buy meat there are 4 or so butcher shops within a 5 minutes walking distance, same with veggies and fruits, bread, or any other thing really. ngl i think i like our system better, but probably is because I'm more used to it.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

There's a growing movement in the US of people advocating for "15 minute cities" which just means the city planning is done like how you describe yours, you can find all the essentials for living within a 15 minute or less walk from your house. There's also an opposition who think that would limit freedom and trap people in small areas. American car and oil companies promoted the idea that owning a car equals freedom to explore the open roads and go where you please decades ago and the idea firmly rooted in the culture. Now all our cities are planned with the assumption that everyone will own a car so there's no need to put things close together and everything can be sectioned off into zones. Big companies like Walmart also killed most of our small businesses so we don't have local butchers or bakers anymore in big cities. Its all chain stores owned by big corporations and they expect you to do all your shopping in one trip and load up your car with a weeks worth of food and supplies. I'm 4 miles away from my closest grocery store, its a short drive but a very long walk and I could only carry maybe a couple of days worth of food. I'd honestly love to have small shops scattered around the neighborhood that sell basic things and only have to make long trips for more rare items and luxuries. There would be more sense of community and a chance to get to know the neighbors, and I think more economic security too if everyone had their own small business and did business with their neighbors.

by Emergency_Tone 1 month ago

The most common example would be single family homes being in residential zones. Inside residential zones you do have properties that are within the residential zone and need to meet some requirements, but are commercial zones properties so do not have to meet all the requirements, they also pay different taxes. Convenience stores and apartment complexes are the easiest examples.

by aschoen 1 month ago

What? Why? I mean within reason of course, but why would you want your work to be far away if you can have it in close by? And why would you want to have to drive to get to the store?

by PreviousClimate3991 1 month ago

Two dwellings? I agree. But the entire context of franchises will basically fall apart if you ban corporations from owning multiple properties.

by Conscious_Bat 1 month ago

So, by your way of thinking, a developer can only build and own two houses at a time. That would actually slow down the pace of homebuilding, which is not what we need.

by obatz 1 month ago

Plus corps would just open up tons of llcs

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Not OP here, but perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "you can only own X properties that are not for sale"

by Plane_Thought 1 month ago

Ah yes the urban development pop ups owned by banks and corporations

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Literally all land needs to be developed before housing is built and livable. You cannot build a house on undeveloped land.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I think his issue if I'm not mistaken is more that companies are owning and renting out houses no? Of course we need developers to develop land, build the roads, sewer, water, etc.

by New-Environment 1 month ago

"Literally?" Are you for sure bud? Based on only what you said.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Well you can build a house on land that's not prepped for it, just means you're far more likely to have issues

by Gwisozk 1 month ago

More inventory lower prices.

by hirthekhalil 1 month ago

That's the thing. Builders won't build if they lower their own prices in the process.

by Spredovic 1 month ago

Do you not understand simple supply and demand?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Not immediately but it would be a great start. We're not even at step 1 rn.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Houses? Sure. If you mean commercial area, that would be crazy. Need a hospital? You get to choose the one 1 hour away in the north or 1 hour away in the south. That or we have like 24 different private hospitals

by Specialist-Lead9684 1 month ago

Local hospitals run by actual people who care about health and not profit margins sounds good to me.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

lol, if you believe there are hospitals don't care about profit margins then you are delusional.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Damn infrastructure would be even worse…thanks

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Here's the thing, in order to bring house prices down the rates need to rise. As rates go up buyers will back out and prices will be forced to drop to bring them back. This is what happens when governments print too much money.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

So chains for restaurants, hotels, etc. should just not exist? Gotta be a bit more careful with your wording.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Family run businesses would rise up to take their place.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

If I own and operate a construction business, a house, a warehouse, and a workshop I'd already be violating your rules as a 'family business'. Would owning a whole Walmart still only count as 1? What about a whole apartment complex, or are those simply illegal to build now?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

So who gets to decide how much stuff someone can own? And if they can't buy extra stuff with their money and they sit on the money, are you also going to decide how much money someone can have?

by Raeweber 1 month ago

Only makes sense to cap how much money a single business/person is able to own. Billionairse dont really make sense because how can a single person own more than a country's gdp? That person can basically buy a country and make the people there slaves.

by Candid-Smell 1 month ago

They can try.

by Raeweber 1 month ago

So no more ChikFilA? Target and Costco are obsolete? Is Planned Parenthood unable to operate more than two locations? And how the F does any apartment building ever get built again?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I agree, letting supprr wealthy own endless amounts stuffs up the supply and demand curve. It means lots of areas are owned by slum lords not bring taken care of. People should own the roof over their head.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

We need to build more housing, not limit what people can buy.

by Useful-Training 1 month ago

I guess another question to ask yourself is... if you hired people to build a home how much that would cost.... still probably more than what you can afford.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

You need three homes to provide a comfortable life?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It's none of your business what I or anyone else owns. I can own 50 homes and it would still be none of your business.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It's the business of anyone that also wants a house and doesn't have the money for multiple homes, just the one. Maybe find a source of income that actually provides something, rather than just being an obstacle and a middleman between someone else who could just buy a house themselves if so many people didn't see it as a way to "earn" money. If not for so many businesses buying up houses and raising the prices, individuals and families might be able to actually get one of their own.

by Perfect_External_491 1 month ago

Nope, it really isn't. Hence, the beauty of private ownership

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Not that it's any of your business, how much I need to provide for my extended family, but have you looked at how much money it takes to put someone through college these days? I suppose if I managed to get grants, or get educational loans cancelled, you'd accuse me of sucking up taxes/freebies. If you want a better life, it's up to you to do your best to make it better, not rag on people you're jealous of.

by teaganjenkins 1 month ago

Or we can point out flaws in the system, work to change it, and do our best not to perpetuate them. I get the idea of taking advantage of the reality you're in, but at least have the balls to admit it and don't get self righteous. Be a landlord if you must, but don't expect a cookie for it.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

This will never be regulated, because the people who could do something about it are part of the same evil.

by Jarrod47 1 month ago

No. We just need to build more.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Why not have a socialist country that rations out housing space?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Because history has shown that socialist countries are more likely to ration the number of people rather than the number of homes.

by Kind_Lettuce8552 1 month ago

Every mouth has 2 hands.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Not sure if there would be a way to track/enforce it, but a requirement for the property holder to actually reside in a home 3-4 months a year might curb the rampant corporate destruction of the housing economy.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

They have that in place already but not nationally in some places you have to live in it for 1 year.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

good luck changing the constitution for this

by Alone-Ad-1148 1 month ago

You can have laws that aren't specifically in the constitution.

by Perfect_External_491 1 month ago

You're not kidding. The shear number of laws in place in America that are blatantly against the Constitution and only in effect because the Supreme Court refuses to hear them is simply astounding.

by Realistic-Page-5866 1 month ago

Allows for flexibility though doesn't it? If every law was embedded in the constitution and required to be passed through Congress, then it would take the same to be undone.

by Perfect_External_491 1 month ago

So your angry you cant afford something you want and you want the government to make it better?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Just make habitation mandatory. If you own a home, you must live there. No more investment properties.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

The reality is that there are people who are good at managing properties and there are people who are not. The people who are skilled at managing and developing property tend to accumulate more property over the long run than the people who are not. That is probably a good thing right? I am a landlord. My wife and I bought a detached home and converted it into a duplex. We followed the building codes, got a permit, the plumbing and electrical work was done by professional tradesmen, the city inspected the home for safety as we passed the inspection, and we are now renting it out to tenants. We are in a housing crisis and what I have done is taken an existing home, invested in it, and turned it into two apartments. Between the two tenants, they cover the mortgage and expenses, and I walk away with about $1,000 profit a month. In 40-50 months, I will have enough money for a downpayment on another house which I will duplex and create two more apartments. With every property I accumulate I will double the housing supply. You need more people like me owning properties because I am doing something productive. I am contributing to increasing the housing supply, and I am being compensated for my investment. Everyone wins. Limiting me to two properties is counter-productive to the goal you are trying to accomplish.

by Ill-Acanthaceae5938 1 month ago

So where would all the people with no jobs or low income live?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Agree that there should be a limit on the number of homes, condos, and apartments that an entity can own. Investors are vacuuming up housing turning it into rentals and driving up the cost of housing. Consolidation in apartment ownership causes rent to go up. Primary housing needs more legal protection. Source, see housing crisis in America.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

How will anyone sell houses (that they build) if they can't own them? Only build 2 at a time? No owning apartment buildings to rent? I don't understand

by Anonymous 1 month ago

This is stupid. So someone can't keep their first home as a rental, own their current primary residence, have a quaint lake cabin, plus co-sign on a loan for their kid? So you don't want middle class either?

by anjali15 1 month ago

Well. The mortgage rate for your second home is typically higher.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Same with 2nd home property tax.

by hirthekhalil 1 month ago

Are you in the US? Are you old enough to buy a home?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Well that's just absurd

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Who would distribute the housing to those that need it? They've only got up to two to hand out.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

No

by Wide-Tough4729 1 month ago

Child

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Lol. Karen's gonna cry about everything.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

How would your home value go up otherwise?

by Anonymous 1 month ago