• gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you asking about the difference between land and buildings? If that’s the distinction you’re attempting to clarify I mean rental properties. I didn’t clarify land rights in my original comment but they’d follow the same concept. A single entity can only own so much, with harsher restrictions towards renting. Land and what’s on it should be owned by those who use it.

      If you mean the distinction between like a mall and it’s shops, I think additional barriers can be created around classifications of said properties. 4 homes, 2 apartment complexes, 1 massive shopping center. That sorta thing.

      • Fogle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you mean apartment complexes should all be owned by the people there like condos?

        What I meant was usually the apartment buildings will build 2 or 3 buildings in one lot. Would that count as one rental property for a company or multiple.

        • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ideally everyone owned the space they lived in, transferring ownership was as simple as finding someone else to move in, and the community invested into their own infrastructure at a more impactful rate than today.

          I’d say each building counts, with rules that discourage things like “connecting” three buildings to make it classify as 1. An apartment complex with X number of flats is a lot to manage on its own, multiple more so. With that reasoning we want rules to limit the amount they own.

          • Fogle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I generally support not actually owning land in general.

            As a side note my house growing up was classed as a duplex which as I understand it is basically one big house where it’s just split with interior walls into 2 houses.

            However what I lived in was 2 completely separate houses with a wall built in between the garages out of bricks. Maybe 6 feet deep or something. Literally 2 separate houses with a pile of bricks between them and they classified it as a duplex for taxes and shit. Always thought that made no sense.

            • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ya, that’s odd. I don’t know the specific regulations but wherever we draw a line it’s going to create edge cases that feel weird.

              Land ownership is odd in my opinion as well.

              What I really care about is the system we have now incentivizes increasing the cost of housing and that’s not how any society should be designed.

              • Fogle@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes the problem is we view housing as an investment and people use their primary residence as a means of funding their retirement. Even if we individually set housing prices and people “lost” 3/4 of their home value they would still be able to buy another home with the value remaining because it would also be lowered. It would only affect using your equity to pay for life services. And even then, if we controlled rent prices and retirement home prices none of that would matter at all.

                The thing with homes and the stock market going up is that it doesn’t create value. All it does is take money from people working and trade it to people who “own” things.