3 ms·

> Those who want an address in the middle of the city shouldn't expect to pay the same as those who are prepared to travel to the middle of the city. I don't th

> Those who want an address in the middle of the city shouldn't expect to pay the same as those who are prepared to travel to the middle of the city. I don't think that building more housing units in the middle of the city is going to solve the problem of expensive housing in the middle of the city. The middle of the city is always going to be expensive. Indeed. Proponents seem to argue that most of that high rent paid by tenants will be captured by taxes and redistributed. Proponents goal is to make "similar" improvements provide the same net profit across the country, even if the rent for it is $800 in Detroit and $4000 in Manhattan. The taxes would be $300 in Detroit and $3500 in Manhattan. Therefore a developer looking for $500/mo profit could just as easily build in Detroit as in Manhattan. After the demand for housing was satisfied by supply rents would fall, and LVT would fall as well, such that landlords continue making $500/mo profit on each of those identical units. At least, that seems to be the ideal situation presented by proponents as I understand it.

lelanthran 5y ago
> Proponents goal is to make "similar" improvements provide the same net profit across the country, even if the rent for it is $800 in Detroit and $4000 in Manhattan. The taxes would be $300 in Detroit and $3500 in Manhattan. Therefore a developer looking for $500/mo profit could just as easily build in Detroit as in Manhattan. Thanks, I understand a little better now. I'm still not convinced that such a thing will be viable, though. The end result is still going to be that people will be willing to pay more to live in Manhattan rather than Detroit ($4000 vs $800, for example), and thus the effective rent being charged is not going to change. > After the demand for housing was satisfied by supply rents would fall, and LVT would fall as well, such that landlords continue making $500/mo profit on each of those identical units. Maybe; I remain unconvinced that simply replacing low-density houses with high-density houses in the middle of (for example) Manhattan is going reach a point where supply:demand ratio is the same as Detroit. It would be interesting to see how this plays out, so I'm quite happy for this to happen :-)

lelanthran 5y ago

> Proponents goal is to make "similar" improvements provide the same net profit across the country, even if the rent for it is $800 in Detroit and $4000 in Manhattan. The taxes would be $300 in Detroit and $3500 in Manhattan. Therefore a developer looking for $500/mo profit could just as easily build in Detroit as in Manhattan. Thanks, I understand a little better now. I'm still not convinced that such a thing will be viable, though. The end result is still going to be that people will be willing to pay more to live in Manhattan rather than Detroit ($4000 vs $800, for example), and thus the effective rent being charged is not going to change. > After the demand for housing was satisfied by supply rents would fall, and LVT would fall as well, such that landlords continue making $500/mo profit on each of those identical units. Maybe; I remain unconvinced that simply replacing low-density houses with high-density houses in the middle of (for example) Manhattan is going reach a point where supply:demand ratio is the same as Detroit. It would be interesting to see how this plays out, so I'm quite happy for this to happen :-)