3 ms·
That's a possibility The other possibility is that we should root out the corruption in this process. I am not generally a fan of privitization at all. In the
by pempem 5y ago
That's a possibility
The other possibility is that we should root out the corruption in this process. I am not generally a fan of privitization at all. In the private market however you're building 2/2s in LA for less than half of the cost including furnishings and fixtures.
By that I mean a 2 bed, 2 bathroom, with all of the traditionally middle class loved touches including faux marble, and faux wood flooring etc.
The situation LA is in is unconscionable as 4,000/mo apartments are going up for rent and developed for less than 350k.
The issue here is definitely corruption and not ability, cost, or the need to put people in Parasite style apartments.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago> The issue here is definitely corruption and not ability, cost, or the need to put people in Parasite style apartments. You claim corruption, but provide no evidence of such, just that the result doesn't make sense to you. But instead of corruption, maybe it is just capitalism at work here? Developers go with what the market demands, and that demand comes through what the market is willing to pay. In that case, they develop $350k units because they can rent them out for $4k, that sounds really profitable. Why would they bother doing what you think they should do if they can't make money doing it that way? Or is it alleged corruption that allows this behavior? If so, what kind of corruption?
- pempem 5y agoI suggest its corruption because I also develop units in Los Angeles and have multiple (5 specifically) bids in my inbox from the last two weeks for building out completely fresh 2/2s on new ground with new foundations in the 350k mark. Including all of what I've mentioned. And they're definitely making a margin on me. That would be why specifically 800+k for a unit described smells of corruption.