“We pay for continued ownership” sure sounds like rent to me.
Make sure you tell those that had their house/property taken away from them due to eminent domain how eviction is not possible.
At that point the term renting becomes something else entirely and therefore useless to discriminate between renters and homeowners. this discrimination is useful, hence we must not weaken our language.
It’s more like a tax, you choose to purchase land from the city, you gain access to city services by living in the city, and in exchange you must pay the city annually for the privilege of owning the land, and if you don’t pay for long enough the city might seize the land from you. Could even call it a property tax…
“We pay for continued ownership” sure sounds like rent to me. Make sure you tell those that had their house/property taken away from them due to eminent domain how eviction is not possible.
At that point the term renting becomes something else entirely and therefore useless to discriminate between renters and homeowners. this discrimination is useful, hence we must not weaken our language.
It’s more like a tax, you choose to purchase land from the city, you gain access to city services by living in the city, and in exchange you must pay the city annually for the privilege of owning the land, and if you don’t pay for long enough the city might seize the land from you. Could even call it a property tax…