> Should you have a right to live where you were born in perpetuity?
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.
>> Should you have a right to live where you were born in perpetuity?
> 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.
It's still an attempt to let people live where they've settled and put down roots. No it's not absolute, but it's in that direction, and like they say, the only thing guaranteed in life are death and taxes.
Sure, but I distinguished between an absolute right ("no one is arguing for that") vs. a more limited right that various places already have.
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".
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".
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.