I had so many questions initially about the premise, like "How can they actually literally own the town", and I guess the answer ended up being "They don't"https://twitter.com/MartinDunlop1/status/1294250157635117056 …
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
Yeah, even in the first season, when they were still using that premise, the whole question of 'owning the town' fell apart the second you looked at it. (I spent most of the first season thinking they owned the MOTEL because they apparently owned the town, hence living there.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Stephen_GM
Yeah this wasn't a premise that fell apart over time, this was a premise that fell apart immediately from the pilot Like no matter how shitty the town is, if you literally "own it" (as in owning all the real property in it) that's still a lot of wealth and power
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Stephen_GM
In order for them to have fallen as far and for their situation to be as terrible as they want it to be for the premise, they can't actually "own" anything in the sense of being landlords and charging rent
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Stephen_GM
What he owns is an *easement* on the town where he has the permanent right to live there without being evicted, but with pretty broad leeway for the actual owners to decide how much his family gets in the way of amenities ...Which isn't all that valuable a thing to own
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Stephen_GM
Why does such a thing exist and how did he come to own it? Enh, I dunno You can cobble together some vague headcanon that it's a "leftover right" after he bought a bunch of property rights to the town to redevelop it and then sold them off again
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect
It's stated outright that Johnny bought David the town as a *joke*. Maybe the town sold off some kind of very nominal "ownership" as a fundraising/publicity stunt. "As OWNER of Schitt's Creek you'll have the right to live in style at our beautiful motel at no charge" etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Stephen_GM
It's like a joke I vaguely remember from a cartoon where a kid thinks getting "the Key to the City" means they literally have to let you in to any building in the city And being corrected that this means they have to let you into any public business in the city during open hours
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Stephen_GM
...Which is normally the case for everyone But I guess having the Key means everyone holds you in such high esteem they can guarantee no one will exercise their right to refuse service
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Stephen_GM
But yeah whatever his ownership of the town entails I think it pretty much has to be canon from the outset that it's a novel right created by a specialized contract The whole point is it was something his creditors didn't bother to take, and they would've taken any normal title
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Now that I think about it, you probably could construct some kind of "ceremonial ownership" where you give someone the title to something but the contract of sale says you keep basically all the rights a landlord would have (they agree to charge no rent and exert no control)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Stephen_GM
And if you did that you can imagine missing some loophole and leaving in some residual right that the Roses could draw on in an emergency Like they can't charge rent or tell the "tenants" what to do but as landlords they have a basic right to physically reside on the property
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.