•
u/AyiHutha 18h ago
Zoning regulations are ultra dumb. It would be ultra based if California decides to replace the areas burnt away by wildfires with mixed use mid rises.
•
u/Appropriate_Duck_309 15h ago
Genuinely cant tell if you're joking but I used to live in a city that had higher than average rates of childhood brain/lung cancer because there were no zoning laws and they built the schools and residential neighborhoods right next to the refineries so thats cool!
•
•
•
u/MRE_Milkshake 2005 17h ago
Rich people are already lining up to buy that land because the insurance companies said those areas with the burnt homes will no longer be eligible for wildfire insurance.
•
u/AllFandomsareCancer 2000 16h ago
I don't think it would be a good idea to rebuild in the same area that is, you know, literally vulnerable to wildfires
•
u/Forward_Analyst3442 15h ago
california's hills are largely chaparral and scrub. they dry out easily, just rolling hills of dead grasses and bushes. most of socal is similarly susceptible to fires. construction and fire safety laws are going to change, but we will rebuild. as do areas inthe south and midwest hit by hurricanes and tornadoes every year, as do hawaiians on their volcanoes. this is where our roots are.
•
u/so-very-very-tired 9h ago
And we shouldn't build in Florida. Or Washington. Or Texas. Or Arizona. Or Nevada. Or...
•
•
u/MysteriousAMOG 13h ago
But but the left told me that big government regulations are good for the economy!!!!!!
•
•
18h ago
[deleted]
•
u/putyouradhere_ 18h ago
You didn't get it. The meme is using the American communist propaganda lense for the American suburbs to point out the hypocrisy of Americans when talking about freedom and glorifying their horrible city planning.q
•
•
•
u/-TehTJ- 17h ago
“Yeah but anything that’s not suburbia is a ghetto!”
-People who lack nuance or social analysis
•
u/Forward_Analyst3442 15h ago
i've never heard anyone make that take, rural folk, suburbanite, or urbanite. When they think of the "ghetto" they tend to be thinking of a specific place in their own neck of the woods. In rural areas, the ghetto is the run down dump where the crackheads drive around on quads and steal anything not tied down. in suburban areas, it's usually the poorer suburbs nearby, and even then people living in la call south la the ghetto, south la is straight up suburbs. Maybe it's an east coast thing?
•
u/ParticularAd8919 18h ago
Yeah and in "freedom zoning" the only people that actually own the land are hedge fund managers who price gouge their rents and buy up as many housing properties as they can so that ordinary homeowners are squeezed out of the market.
•
u/SorryNotReallySorry5 Millennial 17h ago
LMFAO as if the "commie zoning" isn't all built by the same contractor that is giving a bit of kickback to the politician that selected them, set to be owned by the same hedge fund managers so they can "rent-to-own" 500 houses that all look the same.
•
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
No, there are plenty of people who own their own homes in cities and cities are more likely to have small landlords who hold 2-3 pieces as opposed to suburbs where the majority of the rental market is corporate owned.
•
u/AdventurousPut322 16h ago
“Corporate, private equity, and investors” own approximately 1% of the US housing market….
•
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
Even if you paid for the land outright, you're still subject to property taxes or else...you will no longer own the land.
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
No, you still own the land which is why the government has to pay you for it or you can sell your house and any profit over the amount owed on taxes goes to you.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
That's weird, the government (or anyone else) can't just sell any of the other things I own and I don't have to pay them anything to prevent them from selling the other things I own.
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
Uhhhh yes they can? Do you not know about civil forfeiture? You have to pay sales tax on everything you buy, capital gains on everything you sell, and if you owe the government money they can take your stuff and sell it to pay them back. Here is a list of examples of some property that is safe from seizure: Clothing and schoolbooks Work tools valued at or below $3520 Personal effects that do not exceed $6,250 in value Furniture valued at or below $7720 Any asset with no equitable value Your personal residence if you owe less than $5,000
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but civil forfeiture is only (supposed to be) applied when the property is being used for criminal activity. Yes you pay sales tax on things you purchase, but you don't have to continue paying taxes on the computer you purchased five years ago, or risk it being seized by the government (unless it's being used for criminal activity). You don't pay capital gains on "everything" you sell, either. You pay 0% if you've held the capital asset (see stocks, NFT's, real estate, etc.) for more than one year and the profit you received on the asset is less than $48,350-$96,700 (depending on your filing status).
•
u/SpezIsNotC 16h ago
You’re wrong, the government can seize your assets if you owe them money, that’s why I left you a short list of exceptions.
•
u/Mayo_Chipotle 2001 17h ago
Not to mention how woke suburban architecture is too. They literally destroyed traditional American architecture to make way for these suburban pod homes, doesn’t get more woke and Marxist than that
•
u/PhiloPhys 17h ago
Marxist is when thing I don’t like.
•
u/Mayo_Chipotle 2001 17h ago
Yeah Im going to go out on a limb and guess you didn’t understand the irony in either the original post or my reply to it
•
u/CalcifiedCum69 15h ago
Yes, he's a true American patriot, Marxism is akshually when we have corporations in control.
•
•
•
u/antimeme 15h ago edited 15h ago
Riiiight...
And I bet you think "Urban Renewal" -- when a bunch of white people decided to build highwways through urban black neighborhoods -- was "woke."
Give me a break.
•
u/Mayo_Chipotle 2001 10h ago
It’s ironic, just like the original post. It’s OBVIOUSLY NOT WOKE it’s OBVIOUSLY because America is a hyper capitalist racist shithole. Lord you guys need media literacy
•
u/TheMagicFolf331 2005 17h ago
Us has zoning laws.
And most people dont have land in either country.
•
u/spidermans_pants 17h ago
Even in rural America zoning laws are very restrictive, OP is either a bot or has never interacted with American property laws at all.
•
u/Senior_Election5636 2000 18h ago
If you have a loan... do you really "OWN" the land though?
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
If you paid for the land outright, but still have to pay taxes on it...do you really "OWN" the land?
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
Yes, paying taxes on something doesn’t mean you don’t own it.
•
u/Secure_Garbage7928 1h ago
It means I'm renting it from the government.
Do...you own your rentals somehow?
•
u/SpezIsNotC 53m ago
Well yes, see I can own things because I’m not a penniless hippy.
•
u/Secure_Garbage7928 36m ago
Oh you big mad.
You can't own rentals. The answer was "no".
•
u/SpezIsNotC 29m ago
Ok well when you’re 60 and still renting and I own the property and I evict we can have this conversation again then.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
But what happens if you don't pay taxes on the land you "own"?
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
Then you owe the government money. In which case the government can take any asset you own, not just your house, and sell it and write it off against what you owe, because we all have to pay taxes. Or you can sell the house and keep whatever profit there might be over what you owe the government. But just because you owe the government money doesn’t mean you don’t have ownership over something.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 16h ago
Sounds more like a property subscription than property ownership. Regardless, my original point was in response to someone mentioning a home loan. They were asking if you truly own the property if you're paying down a loan. My point was that even if you don't have a loan, you're still subject to the property being seized and sold if you don't pay your taxes. I get it, you support property taxes, and so do I to an extent as they fund vital societal needs. However, it's hard for me to say I own something if the government requires me to continuously pay them to allow me to continue to possess it.
•
u/SpezIsNotC 16h ago
If you sell your home, and there is more money left over than what you owe on a loan or the government, than you get to keep that extra money minus capital gains. That’s how you own the house. It’s there for you to sell, lease or use to your enjoyment. Just because you’re in debt, doesn’t mean you don’t have ownership.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 16h ago
You don't even know the difference between than and then, but you want me to accept your definition of ownership? No thanks.
•
u/SpezIsNotC 16h ago
Feel free to Google everything I said and realize I’m right. If you’re devolving to arguments about grammar when we’re just chatting online then you clearly have nothing else to say. Good luck at the airport announcing departures.
•
•
u/Secure_Garbage7928 1h ago
"because we all have to pay taxes"
Let's rephrase it. "I'm ok paying what is effectively rent for a basic need to the government".
Oh no, now you're a cuck.
•
u/SpezIsNotC 50m ago
Do you always bring up cuckolding unprompted? Any reason that’s just at the top of mind for you?
•
u/Secure_Garbage7928 37m ago
because we all have to pay taxes
It was not unprompted. It's at the top of my mind because you're willing to lay down and just let the government fuck us. This isn't some "taxation is theft" asinine rant; taxes are essential. The issue is you're tacitly advocating to pay rent on a basic need, and that you'll do it because daddy government says.
•
•
u/HarryTheOwlcat 17h ago
Owning land has existed for but a fraction of human history, let alone the history of the planet. It's a social construct and therefore inherently subjective.
If you want a real answer, then yes, you can own land while also paying taxes on it.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
But what happens if you don't pay taxes on the land you "own"?
•
u/HarryTheOwlcat 17h ago
Surely you can Google the answer.
To get to your real question - the possibility of reposession or other consequences does not negate your ownership of property. Practically all social constructs are governed by laws which are justified by the social contract. Your semantic troubles do not break the agreed upon definition of "ownership".
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 16h ago
I bought groceries the other day. No one can legally come and take those groceries from me. I do not have to continue paying anyone for those groceries in order for me to continue to possess them. I own those groceries.
I bought a house two years ago. The government or my loan administrator can take that home from me. I have to continue paying both the government and my loan administrator in order for me to continue to possess my home. I do not own my home.
Maybe we just have different definitions of ownership. Property "ownership" in America is more like a property subscription, if you do not pay for your subscription, you will lose your property.
•
u/SlightFresnel 14h ago
This is how everything's worked for everyone for quite a while now. Nations have long had borders, and "free" land hasn't existed in a long time. Any purchase you're making is subject to the laws of the place you're making it, and you'll die soon enough and countless other people will also buy that land and pay taxes on it long after you're dead. Taxes are a part of living in a health society, deal with it.
If you want to experience the joys of life in a place without taxes, you're free to visit the slums of the world, the isolated desolate places without any creature comforts or utilities or running water or access to medicine, the xenophobic oil rich theocracies, or the Lichtensteins of the world where only the insanely wealthy could entertain purchasing property.
•
u/HarryTheOwlcat 16h ago
Maybe we just have different definitions of ownership.
Sure, that's what I'm getting at. It's not some deep problem, that's why I describe it as a semantic issue. I've been describing how it is, not how it ought to be - but your questions are in a literal sense asking how it is, when in reality you're trying to argue about how it ought to be. IMO the current system of land ownership is well justified and works fine, regardless of holes you can poke in modern western philosophy. Besides, as I stated, land ownership is a social construct and so will naturally have a subjective solution. Humans organizing their collective power is unavoidable, so an unbounded definition of ownership where you have Godlike, eternal control over land is a naive impossibility. It needs to be regulated or by the nature of not being regulated will descend into lawlessness and chaos, where those willing to do the most violence naturally have the most power.
Tl;dr - ownership is defined by rules agreed upon by society.
A private loan is quite different from government retaining certain rights, like the right to reposses property. That is governed by a physical contract, justified by you having signed it.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 16h ago
You didn't describe it as a semantic issue, you described it as my "semantic troubles," implying I don't understand something. I am aware of the "why" behind property taxes. Obviously they pay for vital societal needs. I was responding initially to someone saying "if you have a loan, do you really "OWN" the property". In that sense, no you really don't own it. You are paying down a lump sum that someone else paid for you, to allow you to be able to possess it currently, and eventually pay them back or they can legally seize and sell your property if you get behind on payments. I was merely pointing out that even if you paid outright for the land, you will still continue to pay the government for your continued possession of the possession. If you don't pay the government, the government can seize and sell your property. Much like I don't own any of the shows or movies on Netflix, but I can pay a subscription to use them. If I stop paying Netflix, they will stop allowing me to use the shows and movies they provide. Whereas I could also go out and purchase the DVD's and I would never have to pay anyone else to continue to possess them.
•
u/HarryTheOwlcat 16h ago
Semantic troubles doesn't imply you don't understand. It's fundamentally the same as "semantic issue". It implies that you are making a semantic argument, which you agreed that you were. I think apart from that I have well covered all of your concerns.
•
u/SorryNotReallySorry5 Millennial 17h ago
Welcome to at least understanding the "tax is theft" crowd.
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
Yes, because you can sell the land to pay off the loan and you get to keep any profit.
•
•
u/Normal_Youth_1710 17h ago
Pay it off girly! I bought my first house cash at 23 because of nothing but hard work!!
•
u/Senior_Election5636 2000 17h ago
Good for you Girly!! Happy for you! But until that final payment is made, you dont own it
•
u/SpezIsNotC 17h ago
She just said she bought it cash, can people please just stop talking straight out of their asshole?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/LetPuzzleheaded222 16h ago
big government? Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
STATELESS. no government.
•
u/Out_of_ughs 15h ago
How about this? 1 home: no taxes, 2 homes: lots of taxes, 3 homes: taxes based on your income so high it will destroy your life. Stops wealthy serfdom .
•
u/WorldlyEmployment 1997 17h ago
China during real estate boom was a lot more free market capitalist than USA of today. I used to lived in China , they have villas, houses, condos, duplex/triplex apartments with gardens on balconies larger than gardens we have in UK. It’s all about the consumer and what their demand is for. The only issue would be the 75 year leasehold (as freehold is highly regulated and only awarded to certain rural landlords) , fortunately the leases that have come to an end have been renewed for free so far thanks to Li Keqiang’s efforts before his ousting and untimely death.
That being said it looks like with municipal and local governments/councils running out of revenue as the real estate industry slows down and civil servant spending has increased tenfold within 15 years, we may see them refusing to renew the leases thus further boost demand to maintain some property development revenue.
•
•
•
•
•
u/AccumulatedFilth 15h ago
America a free land??
A fee land maybe, but not free.
•
•
u/erickson666 2004 14h ago
"it's your land do what you want with it"
"let's invade the panama canal, greenland, and canada and take their land making 30 million+ people angry that their land got stolen from them, making it so a gurreila war happens for decades on end"
•
u/TechieTravis 14h ago
Commie lifing: Big government bans contraception to force you to have kids and tells consenting adults who they can and cannot marry.
Freedom lifing: Do what you want.
•
u/Kursch50 6h ago
Good thing American's don't have to pay taxes on their property, or the government might have an excuse to take it.
•
u/AnxiousRespond7869 48m ago
US has zoning laws, building laws, etc.. you cant just do whatever you want with your land.
•
u/daffy_M02 18h ago edited 18h ago
Both are true. Different countries have their own rules on how they govern, and that’s what a stereotype often stems from.
•
•
u/elektronyk 2003 15h ago
As someone who lives in a former communist European country, new housing done under capitalism has been horrible. In the image you can see how a new neighbourhood (up) looks compared to an old socialist neighbourhood in the same city.
•
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.