4 ms·
This seems like a good problem to have, indeed. But the real problem with empty houses is that if you need to really live in that city, you'll have to pay a lot
by motoboi 10y ago
This seems like a good problem to have, indeed. But the real problem with empty houses is that if you need to really live in that city, you'll have to pay a lot more, as the number of houses available is "artificially" smaller.
- chrisseaton 10y agoYou've put "artificially" in quotes, because presumably you know it's no more artificial than any other kind of supply and demand.
- dukeluke 10y agoWell the supply is being "artificially" kept down in the sense that a wealthy few are negatively impacting society at large.
- eric-hu 10y agoI think I agree with you, but it's worth playing the devil's advocate to understand this view more. How do we know these vacant units are net-negative in societal impact? They take up space and are mostly unused, which is a societal drain. But, the owners pay taxes and use few local resources, which seems like a societal gain. We could play with the numbers so that they're obviously a societal drain, just assume they've found a way to pay $1 in taxes after creative accounting. We could also assume the opposite, that they're paying for the education and transportation for dozens of city dwellers. So how do we quantify and balance the costs and benefits?
- ktRolster 10y agoAlso, if you live in the city, you are more likely to take an interest in what happens, and complain to the city council, or vote (in places where that's possible).