5 ms·

This problem is fundamentally a coordination problem, where land is conditionally valuable based on whether multiple lots can be purchased in tandem, and thus t

This problem is fundamentally a coordination problem, where land is conditionally valuable based on whether multiple lots can be purchased in tandem, and thus the value is based on getting everyone to sell at the same time. If the billionaires had known in advance that lots of existing landowners would pull this, they would have gone and bought land elsewhere, and the existing landowners would get nothing. What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse and cause the coordination problems mentioned. And because they bought at well above market price, they're stuck with dead weight if they don't go through with the affair. In other words: the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and 2) this mechanism/behavior of the existing landowners isn't useful to society/the economy as it makes it harder to do things that require lots of land. This is a textbook example of where government intervention is useful, if done competently and not corruptly.

hutzlibu 3y ago
So you are saying, when someone has enough money, others MUST sell to them, because maybe it is beneficial for the economy? "What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse " When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse. Building important infrastructure or mining critical ressources are rare exceptions for forced landsell, but not because someone wants to build a city for the rich on my land. So sure, it is a tricky problem to buy from many owners, but getting the government to help you with your private project to force a contract on other people is kind of the definition of corruption.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  > When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse. I guess in this case they do want to sell it, they just know that the ‘billionaires’ having already bought a bunch of land in the area don’t really have a choice and will have to pay significantly more than the market value was previously. It’s not exactly a case of some mega corporation trying to rip off some poor farmer and “steal” his land… > build a city for the rich on my land. Not that I’m saying that the government should get involved but the only reason you own that land is because want to make as much money from it as possible.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    But it is hard to proof, if someone just wants to make more money (which is legitimate), or if they genuinly want to keep the land. And government Intervention in those cases seem just recipe for corruption.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    Pretty ironic that Laurene Powell Jobs is: - a major investor in this project - who got her money from Apple - which makes a killing gouging you on cables with proprietary charging ports and dongles because their laptops/phones didn't have ports, and thus were forced to buy at a ridiculous price - and is now mad she was forced to pay a ridiculous price for something
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      I’d say their price gouging for RAM/Storage is even more egregious since lightning was way better than micro-USB back in the day. But yeah (then again you seem to be blaming Apple both for adopting USB-C and not adopting it at the same time?)
  - ryan_lane 3y ago
    If I own a sizeable stake in a public company, and I see that a billionaire is doing a hostile takeover, am I wrong to demand a higher price? This is a risk of doing a massive land purchase like this. The seller is absolutely in the right to hold out as long as they want, and to maximize their profit. If they won't sell, build around them.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      You definitely have a point and more or less agree. However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas.
      - monkeydreams 3y ago
        > However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas. Yes, wealth inequality and land development practices are reasons why housing is in such short supply.
blazespin 3y ago
Yeah, they could have had the threat of eminent domain to force a deal, but they should have gone that route instead. Saying something like "sell to us or we'll force you to via eminent domain", buying the land, and THEN complaining about the price tag is ... brutal.
YeBanKo 3y ago
> the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and The inherent value of the land is what market is willing to pay for it in the moment. If you accept that land is to be traded freely, then the seller can set the price as they choose or refuse to sell. What you suggest is that the government sets the price and force sale for the grater good. Even if we collectively decided that this is how it should be, this instance is a really bad example, because they haven’t shared what they want to do there. Why do you automatically think that their plan will be for the public benefit? Eminent domain had a narrow scope, at least originally, for public use. In 2005 things changed [1]. Actually Kelo vs New London is a very good example. The paned out redevelopment never happened, Pfizer closed down the facility in New London. City never recovered its loses. [1] https://ij.org/case/kelo/ https://ij.org/case/kelo/
galleywest200 3y ago
2) this mechanism/behavior of the existing landowners isn't useful to society/the economy as it makes it harder to do things that require lots of land I am confused by this statement, they are farmers. Farms are beneficial to the economy and society.

hutzlibu 3y ago

So you are saying, when someone has enough money, others MUST sell to them, because maybe it is beneficial for the economy? "What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse " When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse. Building important infrastructure or mining critical ressources are rare exceptions for forced landsell, but not because someone wants to build a city for the rich on my land. So sure, it is a tricky problem to buy from many owners, but getting the government to help you with your private project to force a contract on other people is kind of the definition of corruption.

ffhhttt 3y ago
> When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse. I guess in this case they do want to sell it, they just know that the ‘billionaires’ having already bought a bunch of land in the area don’t really have a choice and will have to pay significantly more than the market value was previously. It’s not exactly a case of some mega corporation trying to rip off some poor farmer and “steal” his land… > build a city for the rich on my land. Not that I’m saying that the government should get involved but the only reason you own that land is because want to make as much money from it as possible.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  But it is hard to proof, if someone just wants to make more money (which is legitimate), or if they genuinly want to keep the land. And government Intervention in those cases seem just recipe for corruption.
- camgunz 3y ago
  Pretty ironic that Laurene Powell Jobs is: - a major investor in this project - who got her money from Apple - which makes a killing gouging you on cables with proprietary charging ports and dongles because their laptops/phones didn't have ports, and thus were forced to buy at a ridiculous price - and is now mad she was forced to pay a ridiculous price for something
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    I’d say their price gouging for RAM/Storage is even more egregious since lightning was way better than micro-USB back in the day. But yeah (then again you seem to be blaming Apple both for adopting USB-C and not adopting it at the same time?)
- ryan_lane 3y ago
  If I own a sizeable stake in a public company, and I see that a billionaire is doing a hostile takeover, am I wrong to demand a higher price? This is a risk of doing a massive land purchase like this. The seller is absolutely in the right to hold out as long as they want, and to maximize their profit. If they won't sell, build around them.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    You definitely have a point and more or less agree. However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas.
    - monkeydreams 3y ago
      > However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas. Yes, wealth inequality and land development practices are reasons why housing is in such short supply.

blazespin 3y ago

Yeah, they could have had the threat of eminent domain to force a deal, but they should have gone that route instead. Saying something like "sell to us or we'll force you to via eminent domain", buying the land, and THEN complaining about the price tag is ... brutal.

YeBanKo 3y ago

> the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and The inherent value of the land is what market is willing to pay for it in the moment. If you accept that land is to be traded freely, then the seller can set the price as they choose or refuse to sell. What you suggest is that the government sets the price and force sale for the grater good. Even if we collectively decided that this is how it should be, this instance is a really bad example, because they haven’t shared what they want to do there. Why do you automatically think that their plan will be for the public benefit? Eminent domain had a narrow scope, at least originally, for public use. In 2005 things changed [1]. Actually Kelo vs New London is a very good example. The paned out redevelopment never happened, Pfizer closed down the facility in New London. City never recovered its loses. [1] https://ij.org/case/kelo/ https://ij.org/case/kelo/

galleywest200 3y ago

2) this mechanism/behavior of the existing landowners isn't useful to society/the economy as it makes it harder to do things that require lots of land I am confused by this statement, they are farmers. Farms are beneficial to the economy and society.