What’s he supposed to do, let it sit unoccupied when that’s housing someone could use?
Letting it sit unoccupied? How about not hoarding basic necessities and at the very least sell it instead of letting it “sit unoccupied” because he can’t make a quick buck over the backs of the working class?
An “in-law suite” is different from renting a room. It generally has its own entrance, and a devoted kitchen and bathroom. It’s an entire 1-bedroom apartment built into the house or property (often above a garage, for example).
And it’s not slang, it’s a term that’s been used since the early 1900s, and as the term suggests, it has historically been used to be able to care for elderly parents (so they can maintain their independence while still living with family). It’s not like you can sell an in-law suite separately, and selling one’s house while a parent doesn’t need that and expecting to not only buy another house and having one available with an in-law suite when a parent does need it is a pretty extreme expectation. So it really does come down to rent the room or leave it empty.
And plenty of people want that kind of temporary rental, if they don’t want to be tied to a particular spot for long or don’t want the responsibility of owning.
How exhaustingly pedantic. Oh okay. So it’s renting a couple rooms. Totally worth making the distinction.
You’re still hoarding housing in excess of what you can use and using it to generate a passive income. Literally nothing about the argument has changed.
Letting it sit unoccupied? How about not hoarding basic necessities and at the very least sell it instead of letting it “sit unoccupied” because he can’t make a quick buck over the backs of the working class?
You don’t know what an in-law unit is.
Yet another person who wants to be a part of the conversation but doesn’t know what the words mean.
No, seriously. If you’re hinging your argument on the fact that they don’t know your latest slang for ‘renting a room’ then you’re a fucking idiot.
An “in-law suite” is different from renting a room. It generally has its own entrance, and a devoted kitchen and bathroom. It’s an entire 1-bedroom apartment built into the house or property (often above a garage, for example).
And it’s not slang, it’s a term that’s been used since the early 1900s, and as the term suggests, it has historically been used to be able to care for elderly parents (so they can maintain their independence while still living with family). It’s not like you can sell an in-law suite separately, and selling one’s house while a parent doesn’t need that and expecting to not only buy another house and having one available with an in-law suite when a parent does need it is a pretty extreme expectation. So it really does come down to rent the room or leave it empty.
And plenty of people want that kind of temporary rental, if they don’t want to be tied to a particular spot for long or don’t want the responsibility of owning.
How exhaustingly pedantic. Oh okay. So it’s renting a couple rooms. Totally worth making the distinction.
You’re still hoarding housing in excess of what you can use and using it to generate a passive income. Literally nothing about the argument has changed.
or you could be a normal person and just explain that term instead of making your whole reaction smug derision