Is that bad? Should you have a right to live where you were born in perpetuity? What about everyone else that wants to live in Amsterdam? If housing is limited and we need to ration it, why should it go towards people who were born there? Doesn't that create a class of landed gentry that have the "right" to live in amsterdam and everyone else who doesn't?
An absolute right? No, of course not. But no one is arguing for that.
Various places say you have the right to live in your rented home for an indefinite period. Your landlord can't decide to kick you out directly, nor simple jack up the price as a way to force you out.
But you still need to pay rent, not use it to run a criminal activity, not allow vermin to infest the home, and so on.
> What about everyone else that wants to live in Amsterdam?
What about them?
> why should it go towards people who were born there?
Because for most people forced relocation is very stressful. It means breaking friendships, emotional ties to a place, and possibly finding a new job. Not considering human emotions sounds inhumane.
> Doesn't that create a class of landed gentry
What an odd analogy. Landed gentry make most or all of their money from rental income.
No. Nor does it make them serfs tied to the land.
It makes them residents.
> An absolute right? No, of course not. But no one is arguing for that.
Laws like California's Prop 13 are actually arguing that you should have that right. The quintessential argument for Prop 13 is that your grandmother won't be able to afford property taxes if they match appreciation of housing prices, so a property that was several hundred grand when she bought it, with property taxes that are representative of that price, she can afford. Property taxes representative of the multi million dollar valuation that house now would go for on the open market, she could not afford. So she pays the lower amount. So she's able to live there in perpetuity, theoretically.
(In reality, rising other costs mean that she can't, not on a fixed income.
If you cannot pay the taxes, you cannot live there. If you cannot pay the water/power/maintenance you cannot live there.
Just like if you can't pay the rent, even in country like Sweden with strong renter protections, you can be evicted.
Limited allodial title is rare. True allodial title is very rare. In the US the federal government can always assert eminent domain.
When you wrote "that you should have that right", were you referring to the absolute right? Or the limited right that I said already exist in places?
I thought you referring to the former, as that's the part you quoted. However, you gave an example of a more limited right, so isn't actually a counter-example.
What I was thinking about was how various countries have "attempt to let people live where they've settled and put down roots" as a matter of national policy.
Take Norway, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-tenancy-act/id2... "Termination by the landlord of a tenancy agreement valid for an unspecified period" shows the small number of reasons a landlord can kick someone out. Otherwise you have the indefinite right to live there.
Speaking of death, it even lists succession rights on the death of a tenant "If the tenant of a dwelling dies, the following persons are entitled to succeed to the tenancy".
The US also has places with similar laws, like rent controlled apartments in New York City which, I read at https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/... , also includes the right to inherit.
I personally think these leaseholder examples, which unlike CA Prop 13 run counter to the interests of the landowner, make them a clearer example of supporting the "right to live where you were born in perpetuity".
Srsly, free market autism fully go and all that, but maybe a trace of survival instinct? Like not every place on the planet is SF. And not every place on the planet wants to be shanghai and Dhubai, were the rich do as they please? And money as a protective shield can rapidly devalue in a crisis?
>Srsly, free market autism fully go and all that, but maybe a trace of survival instinct? [...]
So you're basically saying that that economic or moral justifications don't matter, and all that matters is how others feel? I guess that's true to some extent. If there was a bolshevik resolution tomorrow I'm certainly not going to advocate for free markets, but this line of reasoning is utterly toxic for rational discussion. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong, just whether you will get lynched for it or not.
What about them?
>If housing is limited and we need to ration it, why should it go towards people who were born there? Doesn't that create a class of landed gentry that have the "right" to live in amsterdam and everyone else who doesn't?
Yes. A home is not an economic asset like any other. It is the biggest link to one's community and people. Healthy communities cannot form from transient populations.
That sounds more like you're more against airbnb and other short term rentals rather than "Rich outsiders are buying up desirable property all over the world" or thinking that "I know that were born there could live there today" is some sort of wrong in and of itself.