I think there should be some leeway for people who own one home, but want to temporarily live in another city, so they rent their home while living in another rental property at the other city.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think that is something that could be discussed but we‘d need to make sure peeps wouldn’t just search for a way to circumvent the law (which is always a problem).

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

True, but I'm pretty sure it'll be easy to do. If you own more than one home, BAM, penalty tax that is equal to 100% on the rent on that property. If your second home is empty, BAM, quadruple the property tax. You've just made owning a second home impossible to profit from.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay! Bold but I like it.

We need folks to run with this for political offices though.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Funnily enough, between the time I wrote the comment you replied to, and the time I saw your response I thought of a loophole capitalists could exploit which needs to be addressed.

If corporations aren't allowed to own residential properties, and a person is only allowed to own a single home, a capitalist could find a person who doesn't own a home in that territory, buy them a house with the condition that they will manage the property and get 99.9% of the profit it generates. That way, a corporation could go business as usual while technically being compliant...

The proposed law needs to include a section that addresses these sort of loopholes.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I already thought of this as a potential loophole but chose to ignore it since there will be a ton more. Imo, the law should be made as vague as possible and include something like „if a company by any means gains the ability to own or control residential buildings, they should pay twice the amount of revenue (not profit) they make of it. In repeating cases, all people involved with the transaction as well as all directors of said company face up to 10 years in prison.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think laws should be as clear as possible, not vague. By making a law vague, you're leaving it for the courts to interpret, and there are plenty of Florida judges who would absolutely stretch their interpretation of the law in a way that conforms to their beliefs.

But I completely agree that making it a criminal act to attempt to circumvent this law would be a key here. Maybe even forcefully dissolving the company entirely for repeating offenders.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 10 months ago

I fully agree on the second part.

The first part is tricky as it entirely depends on who the offender is. The fact there are sick individuals at the wheel in the US is hardly shocking to me. But in most other countries the judges are still somewhat decent people but bigotted lawyers will find ways around clear cut laws.

Through my experience with both, the legal system and being an executive, I can tell you that its mostly psychopaths - either as lawyers or clients - that will use this to their advantage.

But I guess you‘re right. If we can make it illegal to circumvent this law, it doesnt need to be as vague as possible.

Little food for thought: if the legal system is corrupted, its not a legal system but a control scheme.