If your family is living on the property I still don't understand how this applies? The land is in use, occupied by your family, and is not vacant. If it's zoned for single family, and a single family lives there, it's not vacant? As far as them not paying rent now, not really sure how that happens, seeing as the land is now owned by the estate, and they are livening on it for free(?). I'm not sure how that's not just legally considered squatting, unless there's an agreement for use of the land provided they maintain it in the interim, but again, not an estate lawyer, nor do I know anything about property stuff. But yea, pretty sure the proposal is not relevant to your situation. It's like considering a property with a mother in law suite vacant unless there suite is also occupied. That's not the way it would work.
MountingSuspicion
I think it's valid to address issues with proposed solutions, especially prior to their implementation. For what it's worth, their argument is not entirely sound, since most these proposals have built in subsidies for home buyers, but it's good that they are providing their perspective.
The demand for housing isn't being limited though. The demand for investment property has decreased to be replaced with demand for owned housing. You can still sell a new house. People are still buying houses. I agree with others that worse case, we can bolster development at the federal level, but that doesn't seem like it will be necessary. Additionally, with declining birth rates and an increase in WFH jobs, less housing will be needed, and people are moving to areas where new construction is not as needed as they are moving into previously abandoned/vacant rural areas. So you won't be seeing new housing developments there so much as rebuilding.
I'm not familiar with estate law, but seeing as you state your family is living on a trailer on the land, seems like either there'd be an exception (I don't see how having essentially unused rooms on a plot of land would be a problem) or there's some other stuff going on. Maybe if they're not paying into the estate to rent the land that'd be an issue, but I have no idea how that works for land held in an estate. I wonder if 100% tax would incentivize him to sell? One way or the other either he sells or the land is repossessed because presumably the estate would not be able to cover the tax.
I don't see that it does that. What do you mean?
Totally agree. They made it sound like it was bringing an important topic into the national conversation and that's the only reason I watched it. I'm very familiar with incel culture and I wanted to know how it dealt with those issues, and honestly, it didn't. It was barely about the main character, much less a character study of a radicalized young boy. 2/4 episodes don't even include him. I don't know why people would watch it, honestly.
Can I ask what context you hear it used in?
Exactly. Though crusades have been broken on launch basically every time, so it's possible he's just trying to be transparent about his war planning capabilities.
3 per year. 10 per lifetime. To my understanding that's been the standard since a limit was introduced.
That part is actually by design. The thought being that if you lose it that it will be more likely to be naturally destroyed than have the time to be found by someone with nefarious aims.
The 10 max rule (which allows for exceptions) was from 2004 when presumably they assumed most people did not have reason to be walking around with theirs all the time. I don't know why it was put in place, other than a cursory search seeming to be antiterrorism bs, but 10 is kinda a lot for a document you generally don't need to carry with you and don't need very often in general. Probably super difficult for people that struggle with housing though.
Thanks for letting me know. I watched that and ended up watching the rest of the video. It was actually a pretty fun watch.
Thank you for that information. Who would have guessed estate/property law is complicated. I would still suggest there are solutions to this sort of situation than can be reasonably addressed while still honoring the main purpose of the proposal, but I obviously would not be the person to speak on them.
Good luck to your family. I'm sorry you're dealing with that.