Sounds perfect. Nobody should own more than one residence. Another family taking over is the best outcome for the community. Absentee landlords really need to be given the boot.
I don't understand your point at all. What's an absentee landlord in your book? A landlord who doesn't live in the place they are renting out? I would assume that's - all of them?
Clearly that's not what the GP means, because there would be no dilemma with someone living in a property held by a landlord for more than 30 days if the absentee landlord can just live next door.
Buying more real estate than you use is hoarding. There is only so much liveable land. Out of all the things capitalism can apply to this is morally the worst.
Except people don’t live on land. They live in homes. There’s plenty of empty land. But to house people you need to make the deep capital investment of building housing on that land. Capital accumulation requires capitalists.
They live on both. There's a reason why cali/vancouver are so popular, it's because of their easy weather.
Plus, the home you're buying is on land that's next to a bunch of utilities which are there because generations have worked towards them. Should you be able to hoard all of this (hospital, public transport, etc) just because you're "investing in housing" (which in most part is just sitting on empty houses to sell it to other people that need these utilities)?
This is why vacant home ownership should be taxed to oblivion: you're profiting off something that isn't yours. The only reason the home is appreciating is because the land you're on is gaining value because it's either:
- Most livable land
- Has utilities
- Has people living there that make the city attractive
And owning a home participate in none of this without taxes. Not only that, your incentives are aligned with preventing people from building more houses so yours appreciate, which is a net negative for the city.
