5 ms·

The reality is, often times, some for profit real estate developer with zero skin in the community want to parasite off of and compromise communities(past & fut

The reality is, often times, some for profit real estate developer with zero skin in the community want to parasite off of and compromise communities(past & future) with no regard for anyone. They often yield extreme gains where they are successful, often in proportion to the challenge of achieving that end. Additionally, property values, that serve as the basis for taxes, are derived in no small part, by the laws that define property in that community and the bounds of the community itself. The desirability of communities is a derivative of their value and the value they offer participants, is the most material factor in determine supply / demand imbalances; why for example, there is no shortage of remote deserts offering plenty of room and approval to build. Throwing those out the window obviously has instances where it is best done with caution. Out of context acronym label assignment, especially for clicks, is not always the best path.

tptacek 4y ago
I don't need real estate developers in my town to have "skin in the community". I don't want them over for BBQ or at my block party. I want them to build modern buildings to code and to perform in their role of dialing up density where there's demand from it. If they want to fuck back off to their wealthy real estate batcave after they do that, it's no skin off my back.
- shaburn 4y ago
  Why have code if we're going to throw all the laws out the window? Millennium Tower in San Francisco, Champlain Towers South in Miami, etc. And what if said developer was a former president building exclusively for his followers?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I don't think you're going to be able to checkmate-atheist me into sticking up for the Champlain Towers building. You said that developers don't have any skin in the community. I'm telling you: I do not need a personal, durable relationship with the developers building in my town. "Skin in the community" is a silly thing to expect. I need my car not to explode or lose its brakes while I drive it, too. I don't need Audi to have skin in Oak Park; in fact, the less they know about me, the happier I am.
    - shaburn 4y ago
      "some" was the keyword missed. For your second point, I bet you know your managers or investors somewhat personally though. I bet there are some kind heuristic kinships.
hackerlight 4y ago
I hope that parts (not all) of the political left that focus on this "exploitation by profitable property developers" narrative soon realize that this is a harmful framing of the situation. The left underwent a transformation in the early 1900s, when they first wanted to ban alcohol sales because they viewed the situation as greedy alcohol producers exploiting vulnerable alcoholics. It was part of the activism behind the prohibition movement in the US, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine, and it was the policy of the Bolsheviks early on to ban vodka for the same reasons. The narrative was a social justice one. Eventually they correctly realized that prohibition did more harm than good to vulnerable people, and the social justice stance nowadays (which I agree with) is to decriminalize. Building affordable market housing is not parasitical. If developers are making abnormal profits, then sure, look at ways to regulate (or deregulate, if barriers are the reason for monopoly profits) and improve competition. But do not prevent building market rate housing. You can even build public housing in addition to market rate housing, if you want to. As long as you're not putting up barriers to construction.
closeparen 4y ago
Communities of millionaires extracting ever-greater home equity windfalls from the lifetime productivity of young adults trying to establish their lives in the area are unsympathetic characters behaving badly. It is great when entities from outside these little circles of defection-against-society can disrupt them. Even more so when profits can be redirected from extractive activities (owning land) to productive ones (creating homes). Not only do urban uses generate more property taxes, the services they require cost much less per taxpayer to provide. We have an entire country of suburban sprawl. Those few places dense enough that their connective tissue is reasonably called a community, rather than a car sewer, are ruinously expensive because they are under extreme demand. All types of built environments are essential to a country as diverse and dynamic as the United States. And the way we make built environments in this country is, you betcha, capitalism. This postwar obsession of ours with hyper-local veto power unreasonably arrests every village at the village stage. All our great cities were villages once, and they surely contained some stakeholders who opposed what happened next. Should we have never built a city? If it is right for New York to exist, why is it wrong for the next New York to emerge?

tptacek 4y ago

I don't need real estate developers in my town to have "skin in the community". I don't want them over for BBQ or at my block party. I want them to build modern buildings to code and to perform in their role of dialing up density where there's demand from it. If they want to fuck back off to their wealthy real estate batcave after they do that, it's no skin off my back.

shaburn 4y ago
Why have code if we're going to throw all the laws out the window? Millennium Tower in San Francisco, Champlain Towers South in Miami, etc. And what if said developer was a former president building exclusively for his followers?
- tptacek 4y ago
  I don't think you're going to be able to checkmate-atheist me into sticking up for the Champlain Towers building. You said that developers don't have any skin in the community. I'm telling you: I do not need a personal, durable relationship with the developers building in my town. "Skin in the community" is a silly thing to expect. I need my car not to explode or lose its brakes while I drive it, too. I don't need Audi to have skin in Oak Park; in fact, the less they know about me, the happier I am.
  - shaburn 4y ago
    "some" was the keyword missed. For your second point, I bet you know your managers or investors somewhat personally though. I bet there are some kind heuristic kinships.

hackerlight 4y ago

I hope that parts (not all) of the political left that focus on this "exploitation by profitable property developers" narrative soon realize that this is a harmful framing of the situation. The left underwent a transformation in the early 1900s, when they first wanted to ban alcohol sales because they viewed the situation as greedy alcohol producers exploiting vulnerable alcoholics. It was part of the activism behind the prohibition movement in the US, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine, and it was the policy of the Bolsheviks early on to ban vodka for the same reasons. The narrative was a social justice one. Eventually they correctly realized that prohibition did more harm than good to vulnerable people, and the social justice stance nowadays (which I agree with) is to decriminalize. Building affordable market housing is not parasitical. If developers are making abnormal profits, then sure, look at ways to regulate (or deregulate, if barriers are the reason for monopoly profits) and improve competition. But do not prevent building market rate housing. You can even build public housing in addition to market rate housing, if you want to. As long as you're not putting up barriers to construction.

closeparen 4y ago

Communities of millionaires extracting ever-greater home equity windfalls from the lifetime productivity of young adults trying to establish their lives in the area are unsympathetic characters behaving badly. It is great when entities from outside these little circles of defection-against-society can disrupt them. Even more so when profits can be redirected from extractive activities (owning land) to productive ones (creating homes). Not only do urban uses generate more property taxes, the services they require cost much less per taxpayer to provide. We have an entire country of suburban sprawl. Those few places dense enough that their connective tissue is reasonably called a community, rather than a car sewer, are ruinously expensive because they are under extreme demand. All types of built environments are essential to a country as diverse and dynamic as the United States. And the way we make built environments in this country is, you betcha, capitalism. This postwar obsession of ours with hyper-local veto power unreasonably arrests every village at the village stage. All our great cities were villages once, and they surely contained some stakeholders who opposed what happened next. Should we have never built a city? If it is right for New York to exist, why is it wrong for the next New York to emerge?