3 ms·

> arent competing in the same market It's the same market, because those investors are already there whether or not new luxury housing is built. The people buy

> arent competing in the same market It's the same market, because those investors are already there whether or not new luxury housing is built. The people buying the ultra-high-end stuff will, if it's not available, buy slightly lower high-end stuff, and so on down the chain ad infinitum, resulting in higher prices for those low-end two-bedrooms. Conversely, the very-high-end stuff being built then frees up some fraction of housing capacity all the way down the chain, lowering prices. https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/research-notes/2024/why-building-luxury-apartments-brings-down-rent-for-all/ https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/research-notes/2024/wh... > inner city land is scarce Inner city land here in Portland has plenty of surface parking lots, one- and two-family homes, and old buildings that have gone unused, sometimes for literally years†. † This part also gets into the bizarre rules around commercial building valuations and mortgages, which can make it a better choice for the building owner (at the expense of the city) to leave a building vacant indefinitely and eat the commercial mortgage payments than to rent it out cheap and have the mortgage provider suddenly call in the entire loan because the building valuation went down.

pydry 2y ago
No, the people who buy the ultra high end stuff will not buy it if it is not a good investment. Tax them more and they will decide that they dont need a huge and opulent second home in the middle of a city where all the jobs are. >Inner city land here in Portland has plenty of surface parking lots, one- and two-family homes, and old buildings that have gone unused, sometimes for literally years. 100% land value tax will get rid of those too.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  > if it is not a good investment Until we catch up on literally decades of underbuilding housing, real estate in most US cities will be a good investment. The only question is which cities are gooder investments than others and how much money the investor has.
  - pydry 2y ago
    >Until we catch up on literally decades of underbuilding housing, real estate in most US cities will be a good investment. Or until the taxes on the investment change.
- cipheredStones 2y ago
  > 100% land value tax will get rid of those too. How many divisions does Henry George have? It's not really relevant to bring in radical overhauls to our economic system when people are talking about what politically-possible changes might help improve the housing market.

pydry 2y ago

No, the people who buy the ultra high end stuff will not buy it if it is not a good investment. Tax them more and they will decide that they dont need a huge and opulent second home in the middle of a city where all the jobs are. >Inner city land here in Portland has plenty of surface parking lots, one- and two-family homes, and old buildings that have gone unused, sometimes for literally years. 100% land value tax will get rid of those too.

crooked-v 2y ago
> if it is not a good investment Until we catch up on literally decades of underbuilding housing, real estate in most US cities will be a good investment. The only question is which cities are gooder investments than others and how much money the investor has.
- pydry 2y ago
  >Until we catch up on literally decades of underbuilding housing, real estate in most US cities will be a good investment. Or until the taxes on the investment change.
cipheredStones 2y ago
> 100% land value tax will get rid of those too. How many divisions does Henry George have? It's not really relevant to bring in radical overhauls to our economic system when people are talking about what politically-possible changes might help improve the housing market.