• Wazowski
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just fucking tax non-owner-occupied at 200% market value per year.

    • karashta@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fuck that. No one needs or deserves to have multiple homes when there are homeless people.

      Make multiple home ownership illegal.

      Make it illegal for homes and dwellings to be an investment vehicle for wealth.

    • canihasaccount
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most of the problem is not driven by corporations:

      Investors owing between one and five properties account for 85% of investor-owned homes, and those owning between six and 10 properties account for another 5%, bringing the total share of small investor-owned homes to about 90%.

      It’s boomers.

        • canihasaccount
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m not sure. That’s just a quote from the article. I’ve heard similar things before. If my memory is correct, the thing I heard before had a statistic like this (if not the same one) for single-family homes, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

      • shalafi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Jesus! Did not know that and have been saying owning a couple homes is no big deal, that this is on the big investment corporations.

  • taiyang
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Free market would just keep going since rent is just free money for corpos and even without rent, value is property always goes up.

    Unfortunately, unless you get progressives in both state Congress and the governership, nothing will happen. Californian Dems are generally neolibs, and literally no one seems to pay any attention to any position aside from the governership.