Hacker News Reader

Comment by xt00 | Hacker News Reader

So super mockable company but in many vacation communities some old folks die and pass on their nice house on the lake to their kids. So say 3 kids own the property now. So if timeshares are banned in that area I guess you would say those people need to not share it and force one family member to buy the others out or something? Or they would then need to sell the property I guess. Basically just throwing it out there that many of these houses end up being used by families and often essentially it’s co-owned and timeshared by multiple people —-but because they are the kids of the rich folks that used to live there then is ok I guess. Not talking about a red herring I’m talking about the actual reality that I’m aware of in multiple vacation communities I’ve visited.

View on HN

I would agree with that, my limited personal experience with mid-atlantic beach towns has been either retiree who invites family, multiple pods of a family that co-own a house like you describe, or sort of normal vacation rental for a week-10 days.

And I think because seeing that, my initial suspicion is they really know their target market, or something, and I'm not it. Because the whole "[bought a house on lake Tahoe]...inspired about making the dream of second home ownership possible for more people"

Makes me think "wow, really? that's the narrative pitch?" But tbf I don't know how you go about pitching a second home without sounding like Marie Antoinette.

The faster society learns to ignore these pitches (preferably while mocking whoever came up with it) the better society will be

Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away. VCs will continue to pour capital into destructive enterprises so long as there is a whiff of an outsized return possible from doing so. The solution is faster regulation when these orgs begin operating, to more rapidly minimize the harm and damage they’re doing.

In the Northeast US, it's not unusual to have some "summer cottage" or other large property that's been passed down through generations and is now jointly owned and used by a ton of grandchildren, cousins, and second cousins. I stayed in one a few weeks ago.

That's what's called NIMBYism. It seems to be much more prevalent farther west. California seems to be the crown jewel for them.

I wouldn't never get involved with such thing. I'm glad that my parents got out of all of them they inherited, one is not really maintained, one is now filled with junk though maintained and last one was some land on an island in next country, meaning passing over sea twice...

I do understand some level of attachment, but unless all owners agree on what to do there can be many headaches...

And in fact, the owners sold the smaller house to one of the family members and the larger house which is split among something like 27 owners is now up for sale for something like $6million.

As I wrote elsewhere I decided not to split my dad's house with my brother. Just seemed like too many opportunities for conflict. I'd rather just go up now and then when it's available.

> So if timeshares are banned in that area I guess you would say those people need to not share it and force one family member to buy the others out or something?

Maybe allow families to share houses if there isn't a third party manager charging huge fees for its exclusive right to determine which person is permitted to access the house on which days...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com