> It's a recipe for disaster when shelter becomes an investment opportunity rather than a basic human need. Why would this being an 'investment' interfere with

> It's a recipe for disaster when shelter becomes an investment opportunity rather than a basic human need. Why would this being an 'investment' interfere with its pricing anymore than if everyone had lived in these homes as shelter? You don't magically have the privilege of selling 'investments' for more than you bought it. Not trying to be facetious... just genuinely curious? If people are willing to pay that price, then that is the price it would have been, whether or not it was bought for investment or living, right?