3 ms·

The crux of your argument seems to be that property grows in value because there's not enough housing, which seems like a reasonable assumption but is just that

The crux of your argument seems to be that property grows in value because there's not enough housing, which seems like a reasonable assumption but is just that. Property grows in value because of its proximity to other things of value, not because of the amount of it on the market. If you were to expand the size of NYC to encompass the entirety of New York, housing inside of NYC is going to be vastly more valuable than housing located on the edges of the state. No amount of construction you do is going to devalue that property, and often you can't build upwards because of the rich property owners (see: NIMBY) choosing to use their financial leverage and property ownership to deny that.

epistasis 6y ago
> Property grows in value because of its proximity to other things of value, not because of the amount of it on the market. This is not an either/or situation, both of these impact the price of property! Calling inadequate supply a reason for high prices "just an assumption" is not borne out by any actual analysis of any market, anywhere, at any point in time. It's not just rich property owners that prevent building up, what you are engaging in here is just as much a reason that we can not provide housing for people, and why there is overcrowding in so many parts of the world.