I read a few years ago that we have more than enough housing for people already, but the core issue is that big corps keep buying up houses, then raising the prices and trying to flip them, see Zillow robobuying.
Then the dems were all suddenly "just make more housing" which wouldn't solve the bots
Then the dems were all suddenly "just make more housing" which wouldn't solve the bots
Comments
And we know that the landlords have been colluding to jack up prices together.
so like... genuinely, is building more housing the actual solution here? or is that just a way to enrich builders and real estate owners despite a surplus of housing?
Tokyo is the big example of this: rents have barely increased in 15 years.
if I own two houses, and they're $1m each, then I'm paying normal taxes on house a, and $1m in tax on house b
So ultimately we are just talking about whether we increase supply, or reduce demand. And the people who think one or the other of those is more practical, for some reason, can't just get together with the others and agree to pursue both.
Because its also true that
Basically remember that ol' story about a bunch of goonies trying to "corner" silver market?
"Build out FUCKTONS of market rate apt-towers" would do that to Zillow et al.
1) We assess property tax based on the value of the land, not the buildings on it.
This rewards investing in improving construction and density, and penalizes just holding land in downtown.
1/🧵
If the land in the city needs to be able to handle 2” of rain at a whack, and your land handles 1”, you pay more.
2/🧵
You live there, pay taxes there, vote there, are invested in the community — sweat equity at a social level.
3/🧵
Maybe it’s no social support, maybe you are in on the community shares 2:1 — it’s not your community, so you have to make up for a lack of sweat with more money.
4/🧵
You’re just an asshole and a leech on the community, and that property needs to burn a hole in your pocket.
If you can afford it, great … if not, sell it to someone who will live there.
5/🧵