|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:What if people have lived somewhere for decades and don't want to move because their house is suddenly Too Valuable through no actions of their own? That seems kinda They should be grateful that they have that option since nearly half of Americans are struggling to pay for basic necessities. "Oh no they'll have to live in comfort somewhere else" isn't working up the tears from me, I'm sorry. E: VVV Sorry, I forgot to recalibrate to D&D speed. "Oh no, the poor rich people, they have to make a small quality of life sacrifice, what has the world come to" WampaLord fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jun 4, 2018 |
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:They should be grateful that they have that option since nearly half of Americans are struggling to pay for basic necessities. LOL
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:lol sorry grandma I know you've lived here for 50 years but you gotta GTFO now. Grandma, I'm sorry that the asset you purchased 50 years ago when you and grandpa were working is now worth a cool million dollars more than it was when you bought it and now you cannot afford the taxes. You'll have to drown your sorrow in the million dollars of profit you made just for living somewhere and find accommodations with your newfound million dollars. Seriously, people move out and downsize to different locations when they retire as a matter of course in most parts of the US. The house you want as a younger person with a new family is very different than the house you want as an aging octogenarian who cannot tend to a large garden and has increasing difficulty with stairs. Also, if grandma were renting, she would have left long ago when her rent increased alongside housing prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:What if people have lived somewhere for decades and don't want to move because their house is suddenly Too Valuable through no actions of their own? That seems kinda I mean if they don't want to pay increased taxes on their fungible asset they can sign over all increased value to the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Why should a grandma who moved recently have to pay more in property taxes than the grandma who never had to move? Why are we punishing moving? Edit: if the issue was actually about low income people we’d be talking about low income waivers on property taxes rather than the current system of tax cuts for historical wealth. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why should a grandma who moved recently have to pay more in property taxes than the grandma who never had to move? Why are we punishing moving? Because Grandma who never had to move wrote a law saying she never had to pay taxes as long as she didn't move, but that everyone else did. Why are we punishing people who didn't write lovely, self-serving laws because Grandmas who got here first and all the corporate properties really benefiting don't feel like they need to pay developed-nation taxes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
Maybe we could just repeal Prop 13 instead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Look duders I'm not saying we need to guillotine grandma because her house appreciated, I'm just saying it's silly and dare I say oddly defensive to describe SoCal beachfront property as "theoretical" wealth. It's a tangible asset that can absolutely be sold for loads of cash money, and (remarkably) selling a house does not make you homeless. Yes, having your millions tied up in a primary residence is not the same as having it in a brokerage account. But those two situations are a hell of a lot closer to each other than either of them are to the 50% of America with net worth < $44k,
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Maybe we could just repeal Prop 13 instead? Hell yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why should a grandma who moved recently have to pay more in property taxes than the grandma who never had to move? Why are we punishing moving? Sundae posted:Because Grandma who never had to move wrote a law saying she never had to pay taxes as long as she didn't move, but that everyone else did. Why are we punishing people who didn't write lovely, self-serving laws because Grandmas who got here first and all the corporate properties really benefiting don't feel like they need to pay developed-nation taxes? The law already lets people transfer their prop 13 property tax valuation when they move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
The only things I'm arguing for are A) wealthy people who are wealthy solely because of their massive windfall property appreciation should still be treated as wealthy people, e.g., taxed accordingly rather than as if they were not wealthy people, and B) it's semantic nonsense to claim that real property that has appreciated in value "doesn't count" or is "only theoretically" worth more money. Yes, the money does not materialize until you sell the property, but money itself is only a theoretical storage of value until you exchange it for goods and services, and money itself also has a fluctuating and potentially nonpermanant value, so you could equally well argue that until you actually spend your money, it's also only "theoretically" valuable. So people with a literal million dollars in the bank aren't actually wealthy. See how dumb this is? Grandmas all over the loving country somehow cope and don't wind up starving when their property becomes too valuable for them to afford the rising property tax. California alone chooses to grant wealthy property owners a permanent and ever-increasing tax break for their valuable property. It's poisonous, and the arguments that people present in favor of it are almost as poisonous in how they warp our ability to even think about wealth. In any other state, any other country, or any other era, the idea that real property doesn't count as wealth is and was utterly laughable. Vincent Van Goatse posted:Maybe we could just repeal Prop 13 instead? Exactly. I am saying this as a person who is already benefiting financially from Prop 13. Repeal it. My parents' taxes would quadruple. gently caress them. Repeal it. Some grandmas would have to move, and sell or rent their valuable property? Sorry for your rich-people problems. Repeal it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:They should be grateful that they have that option since nearly half of Americans are struggling to pay for basic necessities. The solution to all our problems and certainly the solution to housing is to further concentrate any conceivable form of wealth in the banks and the mega-rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
The secret here is that prop 13 actually contributes to skyrocketing housing prices by increasingly discouraging people from selling as their property tax break grows annually for decades, as well as creating entrenched communities with less turnover which become increasingly conservative about redevelopment and densification, both critical to adding to the housing stock where infrastructure already exists. But try telling "bbbut grandma" arguers that the solution is for Grandma's million dollar house to instead be worth a quarter of that, and having her view blocked by an apartment building. It's no more palatable than having her property tax be levied at the same rates as most other US states. A lot of them do not actually give a gently caress about grandma, they just want to inherit that house and its tax valuation
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A lot of them do not actually give a gently caress about grandma, they just want to inherit that house and its tax valuation
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
Just let people freeze the valuation of their homes for tax purposes at the cost of letting the government take everything above that amount when they sell/give the government right of first refusal at that price. Your home can be a home that's protected from bankrupting you, or a speculative investment that could make you rich, but not both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
The real secret is that if you want to earn a comfortable wage so that you can have any measure of financial security AND have enough disposable income so you can enjoy at least some of the fruits of 21st century capitalism, you basically have to move to one of the mega metropolitan areas, endure terrible commutes and grind away at some lovely job. The only reason my family is in the bay area is work - we are not the only people who would happily move far away if it was economically feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Grandmas all over the loving country somehow cope and don't wind up starving when their property becomes too valuable for them to afford the rising property tax. California alone chooses to grant wealthy property owners a permanent and ever-increasing tax break for their valuable property. It's poisonous, and the arguments that people present in favor of it are almost as poisonous in how they warp our ability to even think about wealth. In any other state, any other country, or any other era, the idea that real property doesn't count as wealth is and was utterly laughable. The spanish version of the ad for Prop 14 includes abuela getting murdered by the evangelical KKK in Redding. quote:Exactly. I am saying this as a person who is already benefiting financially from Prop 13. Repeal it. My parents' taxes would quadruple. gently caress them. Repeal it. Some grandmas would have to move, and sell or rent their valuable property? Sorry for your rich-people problems. Repeal it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Sir, your infected wound gets worse by the hour, but I understand not wanting the medicine. That injection will hurt! The state will never heal until we address Prop 13.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
They idea that we are trying to tax seniors out of their primary residence is loving insane. Its corporate farming thats using the water, not working class people who made a good investment. Stop focusing on stealing the average person's money and focus on the expansion of corporate power. King Hong Kong said it good too
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
There are plenty of ways to deal with/fix prop 13 that don't involve booting seniors out of their home. You could let people forfeit increased home values in exchange for constrained property taxes, or just have a much narrower version of prop 13 specifically to deal with the grandma case (and get rid of it applying to commercial property, second/rental homes, being able to pass it on to heirs, getting the reduced taxes even when you can easily afford it, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Grandmas all over the country live in areas where rising property taxes are established and more predictable, instead of the shock treatment that you propose or "Siberia, but here!" proposed a few posts up. Any realistic repeal of 13 is going to come with massive insulation against shocks that allow Grandma to stay near her friends and family, particularly if she's living in an area that allows her to access services without significant driving. What you're proposing is that Grandma take her house winnings, which may wind up just helping to offset her devaluing fixed income, and move from an area where she can walk to the park/get help from her kids to living in Fresno, where she literally dies from being cooked alive when she goes outside, and her tombstone says "well, at least it's not Bakersfield". Yes, you're right, there is definitely no additional option between living in a million dollar house in San Diego, and loving Fresno. Nowhere else in the country can you spend, say, $400k in cash on a beautiful large house with good weather and ameneties, and then live on your $600k windfall for a decade or two or three. You're right. It's $1M+ in San Diego, or, it's Fresno. The literally tens of millions of grandmas in the rest of the country who didn't benefit from the California coastal real estate boom of the last 30 years don't exist. Also definitely no option when repealing Prop 13 to phase it in by, say, allowing property tax assessment to float back up to the actual property value over a period of several years, nope. You see, we only deal with absolutes, so the only option with a repeal is as you say, just shock quote:Framing "living somewhere with nice weather" as a rich-person problem in a democracy is how Trumps wall gets fully funded and forced sterilization gets considered. Even young non-property owners will hesitate because anyone who's been to Bakersfield will seriously consider gambling that they'll never own a home vs a hopeless Bakersfield future. Yeah, only California coastal metropolises have nice weather, that's right. Look, I'll try to dump the sarcasm for a minute here. We've arranged our economic system such that people get to own private property, and are exposed to losses if the property drops in value but benefit from gains when it gains in value. You may or may not disagree with us using this system, I don't know, and I'm fine with people who genuinely feel that all private property is theft etc. etc. I personally feel that capitalism only works if you regulate it to ensure it doesn't consume people, because unregulated capitalism will gleefully create productivity and wealth by destroying human lives (and the environment) if it is efficient to do so. But what we have in California with Prop 13 is idiotic dysfunctional regulation. Prop 13 creates an absurd situation where the longer someone owns property, the more entrenched that ownership becomes. Nobody here is arguing that we should throw grandmas on the street to starve. There's this sentimentality though that is misplaced; it's treating Grandma as being not-actually-rich because of extremely faulty reasoning, and then treating Grandma with tax policy that benefits her massively compared to everyone else. Even other people occupying substantially similar and equally valued homes! Why does Grandma get to pay a tiny fraction of the tax on her house as some other Grandma who bought a near-identical house thirty years later? Why does "I was here longer" mean you get to sit on a big pile of money for generations, not just Grandma's life? Victorian-era English landed aristocracy was packed with grandmas, too. Merely being a grandma does not mean you get a free pass on paying your share. If you want to hand out tax benefits to the elderly for some reason, OK, but do it progressively so that the poor elderly get the most benefit, yeah? A tax benefit based solely on how long you've owned a property is not justifiable. Repealing prop 13 could be done in a smart way that eases us back into a sane system of property taxation over a period of time. Lots of details could be worked in to smooth the process. Or if you prefer, we could replace it with a more radical idea like giving all old people tax benefits, we could discuss that on some rational basis. That basis should not be based on the absurd premise that someone whose wealth is concentrated in real estate isn't actually wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
My grandparents and great-grandparents came here during the dust bowl with just a few dollars between them. They scrambled and bought some land in a sleepy hamlet on the central coast, where my great grandfather built a house with his two bare hands. The real estate around them exploded over the next sixty years. It would’ve literally killed my grandmother if she was given the boot by the taxman, out of the same home her kin poured their sweat and blood into. California was a literal paradise to them. My grandmother wrote poetry on the fecundity of the soil and the fairness of the weather. My grandfather constantly bragged about his home when traveling abroad in places like Tuscany and Hawaii. Long time residents fall harder for this state than anywhere else I’ve seen. Call me an exceptionalist, but I can kind of sympathize with those who don’t want to give up their homestead to live in a senior apartment in bumfuck Arizona. ProperGanderPusher fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
^^^ Tell me it wasn't Oceano!Cicero posted:Just let people freeze the valuation of their homes for tax purposes at the cost of letting the government take everything above that amount when they sell/give the government right of first refusal at that price. I agree with this. And if you want to unfreeze the valuation right before you sell, you have to make up the difference. Go ahead and transfer the deed to Grandma's trust so the house isn't technically "sold" when it passes to the kids, because now the kids get to choose whether to keep the house or unfreeze the valuation and sell it. Same with commercial properties, count the property as an asset and pay taxes, or don't, go nuts. Although this could further drive up prices as people ask for more, in order to cover the back taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:lol sorry grandma I know you've lived here for 50 years but you gotta GTFO now. she would have to get the gently caress out if she lived literally anywhere else in the entire world, why is California any different? ProperGanderPusher posted:My grandparents and great-grandparents came here during the dust bowl with just a few dollars between them. They scrambled and bought some land in a sleepy hamlet on the central coast, where my great grandfather built a house with his two bare hands. The real estate around them exploded over the next sixty decades. That's some real moving stuff but you're not fooling me, we all know your oldest living relatives do nothing but bitch about Sacramento and the thieving liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
I wonder how many of these now million dollar homes are in communities that didn't have racial covenants that prevented racial minorities from buying in those neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:My grandparents and great-grandparents came here during the dust bowl with just a few dollars between them. They scrambled and bought some land in a sleepy hamlet on the central coast, where my great grandfather built a house with his two bare hands. The real estate around them exploded over the next sixty decades. Why does your grandma get to sit on a million dollar property, while all the grandmas who were not so lucky as to be able to afford to buy property - but have been here just as long, with just as much tied to their communities and lifestyles - were priced out by exactly the same gentrification and forced to leave as their rents became unaffordable? Basically this is a misplacement of blame. It's not the taxman booting your grandma off her land: it's the forces of gentrification. And those forces are best combated by development of additional housing to meet the demands of the rising population. The people getting the huge tax benefit while seeing their property values rise forever are directly disincentivized to vote for and permit development and densification. It is in their obvious and long-term financial interest to actively prevent development, because they gain the benefit of their own property's rise in value while entirely avoiding the actual cost. If everyone who owns a home has to pay more tax as the value rises, they suddenly have an incentive to support a sane development program sufficient to provide housing for everyone; yes, their property values won't skyrocket if supply meets demand, but hey, at least that means their tax won't go up either! Prop 13 makes Grandma rich by giving all the Grandmas, collectively, the power to enhance their own wealth without consequence at the expense of everyone who isn't a long-time property owner. Grandmas who recognized this often bought additional property and further benefit by collecting rents. A major and ongoing and ever-increasing component of California's rent crisis comes down to the property owners doing what prop 13 perversely makes their rational best interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I wonder how many of these now million dollar homes are in communities that didn't have racial covenants that prevented racial minorities from buying in those neighborhoods. East Palo Alto?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yes, you're right, there is definitely no additional option between living in a million dollar house in San Diego, and loving Fresno. Nowhere else in the country can you spend, say, $400k in cash on a beautiful large house with good weather and ameneties, and then live on your $600k windfall for a decade or two or three. You're right. It's $1M+ in San Diego, or, it's Fresno. The literally tens of millions of grandmas in the rest of the country who didn't benefit from the California coastal real estate boom of the last 30 years don't exist. This is a dumb hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:This is a dumb hill to die on. Is the hill in a good school district? Does it have an HOA?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
The issue with those million dollar homes is no one should be living in them. Move grandma out, build more compact housing, move 100 grandmas back in. They live in the same area, enjoy the fruits of their free million dollars or more, and everybody is happy. The city planning for SF is atrocious because of prop 13 and the refusal to get rid of a lot of that older style of super inefficient housing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
The comparison between “grandma” (or, really, the vast, vast majority of property owners) and the landed gentry is facile and elides the enormous difference between the two that makes taxation on the former unpalatable, namely that the structure of land ownership and income is entirely different. An estate was valuable because it generated income, something that scaled with the size and use of the land. It isn’t that land isn’t understood to be “wealth” but that people are understandably reluctant to look at things like someone’s residence through your warped lens that leads you tell someone to take out a loan in order to be productive when that land isn’t of the kind that either would or should provide an income: it’s the kind that is intended to be used as a residence. At any rate, I did some research and found some studies suggesting that distorting effects of prop 13 on the housing market (which in the studies I found are as high as an 18% difference in housing prices and a 17% decreased probability in selling) are certainly a contributing factor to housing problems but it should be immediately obvious that as significant as that is, it isn’t anywhere near the primary factor. Even if you did something like repeal prop 13 and reduce sales taxes to compensate grandma living on a fixed income in a progressive way without doing something like increasing the housing supply*, you would increase the probability of selling by 11% (compared to prop 13) but housing prices would only decrease by 1% (again, compared to prop 13). *Even in a hypothetical higher tax scenario, it’s a little difficult to imagine that the interests and regulations that more substantially restrict housing supply would be impacted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:East Palo Alto? Funny enough, EPA was a classic example of block busting: quote:One of the most insidious forms of segregation occurred in East Palo Alto, a formerly all-white community a stone’s throw from Stanford University. In 1954, according to Rothstein’s research, one white resident sold his house to a black family. Almost immediately, agents of the California Real Estate Association began warning of a “Negro invasion” and even staged burglaries to panic white homeowners to sell, a process that came to be known as “block busting.” Within 6 years, East Palo Alto became 82 percent black. quote:When black trucker William Bailey and his family of six moved into the Palo Alto Gardens complex in then mostly white East Palo Alto, residents actually tried raising funds to buy out Bailey to keep it segregated. Hundreds of other such stories never made it to the local press, and most blacks did not even attempt to move across the area’s well-known color lines. For context, the median home price in EPA is now $932k while in Palo Alto proper the median home price is $3.3M, so that's a lot of wealth black residents got excluded from. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Prop 13 makes Grandma rich by giving all the Grandmas, collectively, the power to enhance their own wealth without consequence at the expense of everyone who isn't a long-time property owner. Grandmas who recognized this often bought additional property and further benefit by collecting rents. A major and ongoing and ever-increasing component of California's rent crisis comes down to the property owners doing what prop 13 perversely makes their rational best interest. Exactly this. quote:The law already lets people transfer their prop 13 property tax valuation when they move. I'm aware. Prop 60 of 1986 added that little goodie after the elderly people who enjoyed 8 years of Prop 13 realized they would have to pay for something someday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:At any rate, I did some research and found some studies suggesting that distorting effects of prop 13 on the housing market (which in the studies I found are as high as an 18% difference in housing prices and a 17% decreased probability in selling) are certainly a contributing factor to housing problems but it should be immediately obvious that as significant as that is, it isn’t anywhere near the primary factor. Even if you did something like repeal prop 13 and reduce sales taxes to compensate grandma living on a fixed income in a progressive way without doing something like increasing the housing supply*, you would increase the probability of selling by 11% (compared to prop 13) but housing prices would only decrease by 1% (again, compared to prop 13). You have to consider the political impact of prop 13, and you're not going to find a study that factors that in because "how would zoning laws have changed if prop 13 never existed" is a question that cannot be answered in a definitive manner. "They would be looser/allow for denser housing" seems like a pretty safe bet overall, but how much can only be guessed at. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The direct impact of prop 13 on the housing market isn't huge, sure, but it's the indirect effects people are talking about. The problem with prop 13 is that it means that landowners are strongly incentivized to keep low-density zoning around and fight the creation of more housing to make their own homes more valuable. Normally, the desire to increase one's property values are at least partially counteracted by the desire to keep one's property taxes low, but prop 13 removes the disincentive, so increased property values are only good. Yeah, I understand that which is part of why I initially wrote (and I guess edited out) that the study was limited. My suggestion isn’t that prop 13 didn’t impact that, which I think most everyone agrees on, but rather that disentangling the two is unlikely at this stage and you’ll be left with one even without the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Why does your grandma get to sit on a million dollar property, while all the grandmas who were not so lucky as to be able to afford to buy property - but have been here just as long, with just as much tied to their communities and lifestyles - were priced out by exactly the same gentrification and forced to leave as their rents became unaffordable? The property, located within spitting distance of Pismo Beach, is appraised at “only” 700k (it was appraised at 300k ten years ago when both grandparents were still alive), which is completely insane since there are no jobs in that town. The town is Arroyo Grande, by the way. Oceana was a good guess though; my grandparents were friends with a bunch of members of Halycon back in its heyday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I wonder how many of these now million dollar homes are in communities that didn't have racial covenants that prevented racial minorities from buying in those neighborhoods. I'm also not sure who these  folks are that argue bleep-bloo Age>65 (if X=Grandma, then=SELL AND MOVE), because they seem to forget that the elderly can have, like, families and grandchildren and siblings that they'd enjoy spending time with and wouldn't be able to do in Placid Sables, Colorado where the cost of living is as smooth as a 10 cent cup o joe.I'm all for higher density living, but everything being built is either 700k townhomes or a 202 sq/ft SoftLoft 2/1.5 at a cool 3400 a month. I could be wrong about this, but I recall someone speaking about apartment hunting in Europe (Germany?), where you sign a lease with the owner and it's basically a contract that lets you live there as long as you need, insulates you from radical pricing shift, outlines your rights as a tenant, and is overall less adversarial than apartmenting in the States. That'd be a nice change as well. FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
What fantasy world do you people live in where people's grandchildren want to spend time with them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:What fantasy world do you people live in where people's grandchildren want to spend time with them? //Also, sorry for the minirant. I realize that I'm pulling like 3 issues into the discussion FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I'm all for higher density living, but everything being built is either 700k townhomes or a 202 sq/ft SoftLoft 2/1.5 at a cool 3400 a month. I could be wrong about this, but I recall someone speaking about apartment hunting in Europe (Germany?), where you sign a lease with the owner and it's basically a contract that lets you live there as long as you need, insulates you from radical pricing shift, outlines your rights as a tenant, and is overall less adversarial than apartmenting in the States. That'd be a nice change as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:37
|
|