Legit thought experiment and not a troll, because I&#x27;m curious about thinking through this.<p>What happens if legislation is passed that more or less prevents people from owning property that&#x27;s not their primary residence? Like: if you don&#x27;t live in it more than 190 days a year, you pay a really high property tax on it.<p>I&#x27;ve always thought a big part of the landlord - tenant issues around rent control, fair market housing, and a lot of other stuff all stems from the position that people are allowed to own more homes that they can live in, and derive income from landlording.<p>There&#x27;s some obvious issues - not everyone wants to live in a home &#x2F; apartment that they own (liquidity, mortgage, etc). This could be obviated with some workarounds (and market forces might help out a bit too - I&#x27;d imagine real estate could change hands a lot more frequently in that situation).<p>Anyway. Thoughts?