3 ms·
What a bizarrely complicated argument to try to refute the most basic law of supply and demand. Many economists have proven over and over that building more ho
by woah 4y ago
What a bizarrely complicated argument to try to refute the most basic law of supply and demand.
Many economists have proven over and over that building more housing means that there are more places for people to live. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one making outlandish claims.
The number of "underutilized properties" is likely a few percent in your area. "Most condos are empty and owned by foreigners" is a myth perpetuated by NIMBYs and conspiracy theorists.
Even if it was true, the best way to screw over these shadowy foreign empty-building-owning figures would simply be to build more housing so that it's not an artificially scarce investment asset. The value of their investment would plummet and they would have to sell it or take on tenants.
- shanty 4y agoFrom a supply and demand side, Real Estate Developers would gravitate to high value developments due to potential for making higher returns as well as the prestige in building "fancier" developments.
- prottog 4y agoA glut in the supply of high value developments would lower the market price of existing lower value stock, as well. Plus, in a lot of places developers are forced to focus on "luxury" housing because their margins are hamstrung by affordable unit requirements; so instead of putting up a building that's 100% medium rate, they build something with 70% luxury units to offset the 30% affordable units.