Changing the rules about around ownership is the worst solution to that problem. A better solution is to create new municipalities with rules designed from the beginning to encourage multigenerational ownership but of course, USG has a horrible track record of allowing that
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
Unfortunately it turns out those rules like that are *racist* Lot of material downhill from the anti-racist snowball that started rolling
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Undermining confidence in the security of property after the fact is bad for everyone long-term. Starting out from the beginning that only x% of the property in the city can be owned by non-resident is different (and better)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
That kind of collective action taken with the idea of improving a whole community is generally illegal because those same type of structures could and would be used to exclude races that are on average badly behaved.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't think anyone in that position cares about being called racist - they care that a small scale, new community is vulnerable to the feds literally burning it down or that a large scale existing community would be bankrupted by lawfare
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
If you take a city and seize all the Chinese owned property the city will suffer for it b/c people don't trust the municipality to protect property rights If you build a small community with like minded families that screens potential residents it'll have problems with the feds
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If someone tries to reverse Detroit a major city you might get a nuclear bomb dropped on it
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.