16 ms·
If the owners are paying property tax on (very expensive) homes then the extra revenue should be very beneficial to poor people who use city services and contri
by AJ007 10y ago
If the owners are paying property tax on (very expensive) homes then the extra revenue should be very beneficial to poor people who use city services and contribute little to no tax revenue. If there is no property tax, or it is abated (NYC), or the city prevents new construction, then it is another issue.
- codr4life 10y agoWhile that's how it's supposed to work in theory; do you really still buy into that bullshit? You can't see how that's just another excuse to let the rich keep raping the world at their convenience? Ever been to Lisbon? I swear half the city is vacant by now, all the old beautiful buildings; and poor people have less money than ever.
- rebuilder 10y agoIn Lisbon, I'm told, the issue is that people can't afford rents that would pay for renovations. Also in 2009 or so the locals told me the regulations on how the old buildings were to be renovated were quite strict, adding to the cost.
- chriogenix 10y agoIn Lisbon there's been quite a bit of foreign investment due to their visa program so you have the property market propped up from that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- j2bax 10y agoIt's the lower middle class who used to be able to afford to own a home in these areas that now can't, that are really hurt. I've seen this happen in small towns around rural upstate NY in the adirondack park where wealthy people from the city spend massive amounts of money on property and spend a holiday or two per year in them. The economies of these small towns are generally almost non existent and the couple holidays a year isn't enough to lift them up to match the ridiculous rise in real estate and property. It's a really unfortunate situation.
- wbl 10y agoSmall town in rural area seems could enable more construction so that people could live in new houses. Don't forget second homes pay taxes.