3 ms·

Basically, if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you

Basically, if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you that - they don't intend to buy, in which case you can proceed with the sale - they buy at the price you've set - they make a counter-offer, which you have the right to refuse but then you also renounce to sell If there's a dispute on the price (especially in the third case), a tribunal will decide the eventual price, "based on the recent sale prices of similar properties".

bluefirebrand 3y ago
I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks. That's bs If government is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the government counter offer or I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors to set the price at something very close to that anyways And if I don't like it, I'm legally not allowed to sell? Ridiculous Even if you don't think houses should be infinitely appreciating assets, which I don't, your asset worth should still be as valuable as someone is willing to pay for them, not controlled by a cartel style government
- JBorrow 3y ago
  Whether you like it or not the government does tell you how much your house is worth through monetary policy.
- Ragnarork 3y ago
  > I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors That's an assumption on your part. Both the owner and the city can mount a legal case as to why their price is the correct one. In practice, this is often done by comparison with other properties in the same area and with the same characteristics. The judge also gets to visit the actual property to have its own perspective on it. Both the owner and the city have access to the same data when it comes to properties sold and bought, and must establish their cases based on concrete notarial deeds. There are indeed cases where the city makes a counter-proposal with a price that is significantly lower than market rates, but you have court rulings that reject these and side with the owner. I don't think it's perfect, but it's not one-sided like you describe. It can be frustrating, but eventually the city is not just a bunch of houses piled up in a completely decentralized way, and the preemption right, which has exceptions, for example properties recently built cannot be preempted, and which isn't automatic, i.e. there are multiple recourses for owners, is there so that the city has some leeway to conduct policy with regards to housing.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    But the market is completely distorted because the government is close to a monopsony. Especially if they "preempt" an entire neighborhood. There's no private sales to point the tribunal to in that case so they have utter control over the price
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective. But, it's worthwhile to ask this question so that we can understand why it could make sense to give the public a say in how land is allocated and used. Also, I'd like to point out that when you say: > I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical: > If ~government~ a large private company is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the ~government~ large private company's counter offer or ~I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors to set the price at something very close to that anyways~ With, of course, the downside that there's no system-level recourse when the large private company uses its power to either: - undercut your "market value" of your home and force you to sell - or make living in your home terrible due to it successfully buying up and controlling all of the land _surrounding_ your home Both lead to what you are saying you don't like -- some _external_ actor coming in and controlling "how much [your] home is worth."
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    > It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical: Yeah that's kind of my point! This would very obviously be predatory if it were a real estate conglomerate, which is something government should protect people from, not actually just become themselves!! > Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective This is completely irrelevant to the topic, because in this case we are talking about a situation where land is being treated as a private asset, and a government is acting like a private real estate conglomerate You can challenge it on grounds of what "should" be, but that's an entirely different discussion
- creaturemachine 3y ago
  This isn't some government rug-pull on your idyllic picket-fenced suburban house. You might find housing to be different in other parts of the world.
- locallost 3y ago
  That's what libertarians want until it's time to use eminent domain to build a freeway so they can exercise their freedoms. Then it's fine to cap your property value to something else because you can always prop the goal of progress as very important. But if you want to prop something else, dare I say something left leaning, something they're not interested in, then it's outrageous.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks What's your take on anti-price-gauging laws? Should the government "cap" the price of food and bottled water after a natural disaster, or should the seller determine how much it's worth, as determined by supply & demand?
  - agucova 3y ago
    Now I'm curious about what's your take on them
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      I'm generally not against the existence/enforcement of price smoothing laws (over time - as the intention with anti-price-gauging laws, or across the market, with market comparisons). I think it strikes a good balance when bridging the macro to the micro.
- pjc50 3y ago
  You've misunderstood. You can choose what your sale price is. You may or may not clear the market (find a buyer) at that price. But, if you do, you may have to sell to the government. You choose the price but not the buyer. Paris property remains extremely expensive.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    Based on the parent comment, I don't think I've misunderstood "if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you that [list of options here]" It seemed like the city has right of first refusal. If they make a counter offer you are then either obligated to accept their offer, or go to tribunal, or not sell

bluefirebrand 3y ago

I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks. That's bs If government is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the government counter offer or I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors to set the price at something very close to that anyways And if I don't like it, I'm legally not allowed to sell? Ridiculous Even if you don't think houses should be infinitely appreciating assets, which I don't, your asset worth should still be as valuable as someone is willing to pay for them, not controlled by a cartel style government

JBorrow 3y ago
Whether you like it or not the government does tell you how much your house is worth through monetary policy.
Ragnarork 3y ago
> I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors That's an assumption on your part. Both the owner and the city can mount a legal case as to why their price is the correct one. In practice, this is often done by comparison with other properties in the same area and with the same characteristics. The judge also gets to visit the actual property to have its own perspective on it. Both the owner and the city have access to the same data when it comes to properties sold and bought, and must establish their cases based on concrete notarial deeds. There are indeed cases where the city makes a counter-proposal with a price that is significantly lower than market rates, but you have court rulings that reject these and side with the owner. I don't think it's perfect, but it's not one-sided like you describe. It can be frustrating, but eventually the city is not just a bunch of houses piled up in a completely decentralized way, and the preemption right, which has exceptions, for example properties recently built cannot be preempted, and which isn't automatic, i.e. there are multiple recourses for owners, is there so that the city has some leeway to conduct policy with regards to housing.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  But the market is completely distorted because the government is close to a monopsony. Especially if they "preempt" an entire neighborhood. There's no private sales to point the tribunal to in that case so they have utter control over the price
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective. But, it's worthwhile to ask this question so that we can understand why it could make sense to give the public a say in how land is allocated and used. Also, I'd like to point out that when you say: > I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical: > If ~government~ a large private company is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the ~government~ large private company's counter offer or ~I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors to set the price at something very close to that anyways~ With, of course, the downside that there's no system-level recourse when the large private company uses its power to either: - undercut your "market value" of your home and force you to sell - or make living in your home terrible due to it successfully buying up and controlling all of the land _surrounding_ your home Both lead to what you are saying you don't like -- some _external_ actor coming in and controlling "how much [your] home is worth."
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  > It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical: Yeah that's kind of my point! This would very obviously be predatory if it were a real estate conglomerate, which is something government should protect people from, not actually just become themselves!! > Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective This is completely irrelevant to the topic, because in this case we are talking about a situation where land is being treated as a private asset, and a government is acting like a private real estate conglomerate You can challenge it on grounds of what "should" be, but that's an entirely different discussion
creaturemachine 3y ago
This isn't some government rug-pull on your idyllic picket-fenced suburban house. You might find housing to be different in other parts of the world.
locallost 3y ago
That's what libertarians want until it's time to use eminent domain to build a freeway so they can exercise their freedoms. Then it's fine to cap your property value to something else because you can always prop the goal of progress as very important. But if you want to prop something else, dare I say something left leaning, something they're not interested in, then it's outrageous.
sangnoir 3y ago
> How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks What's your take on anti-price-gauging laws? Should the government "cap" the price of food and bottled water after a natural disaster, or should the seller determine how much it's worth, as determined by supply & demand?
- agucova 3y ago
  Now I'm curious about what's your take on them
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    I'm generally not against the existence/enforcement of price smoothing laws (over time - as the intention with anti-price-gauging laws, or across the market, with market comparisons). I think it strikes a good balance when bridging the macro to the micro.
pjc50 3y ago
You've misunderstood. You can choose what your sale price is. You may or may not clear the market (find a buyer) at that price. But, if you do, you may have to sell to the government. You choose the price but not the buyer. Paris property remains extremely expensive.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  Based on the parent comment, I don't think I've misunderstood "if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you that [list of options here]" It seemed like the city has right of first refusal. If they make a counter offer you are then either obligated to accept their offer, or go to tribunal, or not sell