3 ms·

It sounds like you're against the idea of land ownership, so there's no logic that could change your thinking. Also, it's laughable that you think that 64% of t

by prklmn 9y ago

It sounds like you're against the idea of land ownership, so there's no logic that could change your thinking. Also, it's laughable that you think that 64% of the country can be considered "aristocracy."

asabjorn 9y ago
I think the parent incirrectly plays into an antagonistic story between renters and landowners, which is not present in a healthy market with balanced housing supply. However, I do not see how the parent argues against land ownership. The parent quite the contrary argues for more rezoning to meet demand, which to the contrary is very pro land owner since you therefore can extract more value out of your land by building more housing units on it.
- closeparen 9y ago
  If so few people want to live in a city that there’s no contention for housing or presssure to increase density, then it isn’t healthy. Even without newcomers, a healthy city would be reproducing at least slightly above replacement, so it would still need to grow. Granted, most American cities are this way. That’s because they are shriveled ruins of their former selves thanks to White Flight and deindustrializaton.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    We disagree that prices need to temporarily go up to give developers an incentive to build to meet demand. Landlords will buy real estate from these developers and the normal return should be 3-8% on that investment. There should be a lower return for less efficient land use, buildings that are badly maintained or outdated housing stock.
closeparen 9y ago
Uh, what? The idea of land ownership is that you have an exclusive right to use your own land. You seem to have confused land ownership with its complement, ie. the right to dictate the uses of neighboring land but not your own. I don’t see any inverse deeds listed on the MLS. The closest thing I can think of would be voting shares in a corporation that come with permission to live on its land. But I’m guessing you’re not in favor of permitting more coops/TICs. That many suburbs function this way is an emergent property of the political process, which can and should be unmade through the same process. Owning a home in a coastal city or other job center is a question of bloodline and being in the right place at the right time; it’s not realistically available for any amount of wage labor, which is why I call it aristocracy. People whose home value corresponds to their earned income (most homeowners) aren’t in that category.

by prklmn 9y ago

asabjorn 9y ago

I think the parent incirrectly plays into an antagonistic story between renters and landowners, which is not present in a healthy market with balanced housing supply. However, I do not see how the parent argues against land ownership. The parent quite the contrary argues for more rezoning to meet demand, which to the contrary is very pro land owner since you therefore can extract more value out of your land by building more housing units on it.

closeparen 9y ago
If so few people want to live in a city that there’s no contention for housing or presssure to increase density, then it isn’t healthy. Even without newcomers, a healthy city would be reproducing at least slightly above replacement, so it would still need to grow. Granted, most American cities are this way. That’s because they are shriveled ruins of their former selves thanks to White Flight and deindustrializaton.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  We disagree that prices need to temporarily go up to give developers an incentive to build to meet demand. Landlords will buy real estate from these developers and the normal return should be 3-8% on that investment. There should be a lower return for less efficient land use, buildings that are badly maintained or outdated housing stock.

closeparen 9y ago

Uh, what? The idea of land ownership is that you have an exclusive right to use your own land. You seem to have confused land ownership with its complement, ie. the right to dictate the uses of neighboring land but not your own. I don’t see any inverse deeds listed on the MLS. The closest thing I can think of would be voting shares in a corporation that come with permission to live on its land. But I’m guessing you’re not in favor of permitting more coops/TICs. That many suburbs function this way is an emergent property of the political process, which can and should be unmade through the same process. Owning a home in a coastal city or other job center is a question of bloodline and being in the right place at the right time; it’s not realistically available for any amount of wage labor, which is why I call it aristocracy. People whose home value corresponds to their earned income (most homeowners) aren’t in that category.