But if you think that it’s reasonable for someone to own a house where they work, where they originally were from, and where they want to vacation, then quite frankly I don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye.

I think there's an "OR" there, not an "AND". Or are you refusing to see eye to eye with someone who buys a house somewhere because their career moved, then chooses to keep the old one because they were able to rent it? If that's the case, why?

Also, if it could conclusively be shown that keeping people from having a second home wouldn't affect homelessness (which I suspect is true), would you still want to prevent ownership of a second home? If so, why? Just want to stick it to the middle class?

I'm sorry, but considering the top 1% has more than twice wealth of the entire bottom 99% combined, it seems counterintuitive to pass radical reforms that have a larger effect on the lower 99% than the top 1%.

I mean, if I were filthy rich and that kind of thing passed, I would just deed out a single plot of land with a 100-mile or more strip between two 100-acre squares (probably work with other 1%ers to have a co-op of that thin strip of land) and I'd get away with having as many houses as I wanted.

But someone like you or me finds a good price on a little 800sqft second house close to work saving time, money, and environment on commuting? Banned?

What about vacation homes? They are quite common in countries that used to be in the soviet block.

Or mountain huts