> But allowing speculators to hold the land for ransom Property owners paid all the development costs, directly and indirectly,as well as all the maintenance a

> But allowing speculators to hold the land for ransom Property owners paid all the development costs, directly and indirectly,as well as all the maintenance and bureaucratic work. If you rent an appartment, you're not paying for a percentage of the lot. You're paying for the fraction of a whole system (structural, electrical, sanitary, etc) which exists only because those who invested their hard-earned cash puting everything together. More importantly, that little lot is only worth something because other investors spent their hard-earned cash investing in that area, either in urban development projects or in commercial and/or industrial activities. So quite obviously that sort of exploitation angle makes no sense as it is based on a very weak strawman (i.e., there is only value in occupying a specific region in space) that had no bearing in reality. Let's put it this way: what would happen to San Francisco's housing costs if magically the entire tech industry raised their figuratice anchor and moved elsewhere?