17
submitted 1 year ago by zephyreks@lemmy.ca to c/vancouver@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Great, but no one is proposing what you’re opposed to.

What I’m saying is that they’re able to hoard their huge homes all to themselves, without having renters, because we subsidize them to do so. They should be paying for the increase in land value with higher taxes. Instead they get to profit from increasing land value, deny other people a place to live, and, to top it off, not pay the fair price in taxes for all that unused space. Would correcting that be “forcing” them to quarter people? Obviously not.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Did you read the title of this post? That's exactly what's being implied. If anything, you're moving the goalposts in the discussion.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

No, I gave you a concrete example of how we can also change the perverse incentives. Your insistence that the most plausible alternative is “forced quartering” is ridiculous.

Also, stop using sock puppet accounts to upvote yourself and downvote me. There’s no way you posted a comment and someone instantly upvoted you 1 second later.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

You're delusional lmao and your concrete example had no relevancy to my comment or the subject of this post

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

What don't you understand? Homeowners now are financially incentivized to leave their homes empty. That doesn't have to be the case. Literally no one except you is talking about "forced quartering".

this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
17 points (90.5% liked)

Vancouver

1403 readers
4 users here now

Community for the city of Vancouver, BC

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS