4 ms·
I agree with all this. I'll further add that the landlord being there means they can't simply foist loud, unruly or unsafe temporary residents on an area where
by cletus 5y ago
I agree with all this.
I'll further add that the landlord being there means they can't simply foist loud, unruly or unsafe temporary residents on an area where he or she does not have any skin in the game. That is, they have to suffer the consequences too. This invariably will lead to less negative externalities.
But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost before being simply an investment vehicle for a foreign pension fund (for example).
That would mean that in NYC, for example, you get charged much higher property tax if you yourself are not a NYC resident (or possibly NYS resident).
- dorchadas 5y ago> But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost It's so weird to me to think that this isn't considered the default view. I 100% agree with it, and think it should be the obvious view, but it's clear there's many who do disagree.
- jolux 5y agoIt is the default view. The problem is that our tax structures and zoning regulations incentivize this behavior. We need a land value tax to really put an end to it, and get rid of the laws that stop housing supply from meeting demand in cities across the US.
- bostonsre 5y agoYea, I think future residents should be allowed to join a city without being penalized. The artificially constrained housing supply and NIMBY-ism seems very unamerican to me.
- jolux 5y agoIn some ways it’s very American, it’s just the side of America that we’re not proud of. Property owners benefit from the status quo of housing scarcity, and they are the most powerful bloc in local politics.
- bostonsre 5y agoYea, very true.. there usually seems to be a strong resistance to change around giving others an opportunity to chase the american dream that is mirrored pretty well with artificially constrained housing supply/nimbyism. There is always that contingent of the population that wants to close the door behind them to prevent others from attaining what they have already reached. At least we always seem to have that opposite view point to oppose them.