I also don't buy their argument that this isn't a timeshare.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare:
> A timeshare (sometimes called vacation ownership) is a property with a divided form of ownership or use rights. These properties are typically resort condominium units, in which multiple parties hold rights to use the property, and each owner of the same accommodation is allotted their period of time.
...and here's how Pacaso is explained, in the article:
> If you buy a share in a house, you're able to stay in it 44 nights per year in increments that can't exceed 14 consecutive days per visit.
This sounds like the same thing to me, regardless of how you try to package it.
I suppose the legality will probably involve an interpretation of what "ownership" means. Pacaso's legal team will clearly be working hard to distinguished their notion of "ownership" from that of a timeshare. They'll probably focus on the fact that it's easier to sell, or something.
But I don't buy it. Nor do I hope they succeed. The housing crisis is a real problem. If people with the means can "invest" in the market it'll be another vehicle for making housing inaccessible to people. That sucks.
This is clearly a place where the private market is doing something that's suboptimal for society. If this is limited to vacation destinations (Lake Tahoe), as timeshare legislation strives to ensure, then it's fine. But if it becomes even easier to make an "investment" in homes in busy metropolitan areas like San Francisco and Seattle then more people, simply put, won't have a place to stay. We'll see more homelessness, and artists, restaurant workers and folks who are getting their career started will be further ostracized from the housing market. That sucks.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28288668 (125 points/201 comments)