3 ms·
The "primary value of a property" (place), then, does not keep you warm or protect you from rain or theft, has no amenities nor facilities to store your belongi
by quesera 3y ago
The "primary value of a property" (place), then, does not keep you warm or protect you from rain or theft, has no amenities nor facilities to store your belongings. It does not supply water or electricity, and has no responsible party to keep it maintained.
You might instead choose a open field, or under a bridge, which would require no rent payment.
- shuckles 3y agoThe locational value of most property far outweighs the value of improvements on it. This is not a particularly controversial statement among economists. A 1000 ft. high rise in Antarctica is not very valuable. A lord who extracts taxes from peasants that grow crops on it does little to improve the ground.
- quesera 3y agoOnly correct if you choose the extremes. Regardless, open fields and under bridges in, e.g., San Francisco are lousy places to live. Without the improvements, you do not have a home. So most people choose to pay for the "places" with improvements. The primary value of a property is therefore not the place. Location is sometimes the most significant variable in the value of a property. But that is not the same thing.