[powersurge360]

It isn't literally the same thing as a company town but the concept from the headline at least is close enough to cause a pretty visceral reaction. Honestly, even as explained in the top level comment I am uncomfortable with my corporate employer having any rights to my property after I leave their employ no matter how 'weak' they may seem. Work should be a fair exchange of labor or product for capital, imo. It's more a symptom of housing being used as an investment than as actual housing for humans that this is considered a good deal. If housing wasn't increasingly difficult to come by, this wouldn't even be on the table as a compelling offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

[smeej]

The restriction that you have to own it for 3 years because you're getting it at cost seems aligned with nearly every government mortgage subsidy. They're normally loans that have to be repaid if you sell within a time period. And ROFR at market value after that doesn't seem like it has any negative effect on the seller.

And, to be clear, these restrictions would apply to someone who was still an employee and wanted to sell, not just to someone who wasn't an employee anymore. The restrictions are because of the financial considerations being offered at the purchase of the home, not because of the employment relationship.

[donmcronald]

Yeah. It's not super terrible. The restrictions are pretty reasonable to keep the company from being overrun with people that take a job, buy a house, and leave.

I don't think it's great for competition since smaller companies won't be able to offer the same incentive, but it does create downward pressure on the housing market and at least the employees end up owning a major asset.

Another way to look at it is the company providing enough total compensation for their employees to buy a house. It almost seems unnaturally altruistic which kind of freaks me out. Lol.

[ilyt]

But if you leave before X years you get.... affordable housing for that period rented below market rate to you.

So employee lose what exactly ? (I assume) they wouldn't be able to mortgage a property at market rate without it

> If housing wasn't increasingly difficult to come by, this wouldn't even be on the table as a compelling offer.

Well, the city doing exact same thing would certainly be preferable, but this is still helping the problem