3 ms·

Why? What's the issue, if me, an Italian, own land in Indiana or North Cali?

chrisco255 2y ago
You, a single actor, probably wouldn't be a significant factor. However, an international government or corporate entity owning hundreds of thousands of acres and exploiting resources on the land and routing them back to their home country can be problematic. It places additional strain on limited resources and the profits are not spent in the local economy...just sent overseas. Absentee ownership of non-productive real estate can also drive up the costs of housing for citizens, making homeownership more difficult and driving down wealth in the middle class.
- epolanski 2y ago
  I see it completely opposite of you. 1) The foreign entity is investing where Americans aren't. 2) There is a very huge risk for the foreign entity to own such an operation because of political changes. By law or decree the US or the state can always nationalize these lands. Thus, ultimately, I see no issue there.
  - gwbrooks 2y ago
    1. Foreign entities are also investing in land that is strategically or tactically important -- agricultural land is a good example of the former; land near military bases an example of the latter. China has demonstrated a willingness to do both. 2. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. The Constitution provides no power for the federal government to acquire land without just compensation, which courts have regularly held to mean fair market value. Put another way: The feds can likely devise a path for buying your land, but can't outright nationalize it. Changing that is not a matter of presidential decree or even a law by Congress; it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which is an extraordinarily heavy political and policy lift.
    - epolanski 2y ago
      I still see no issue, the government can always buy it out at fair price, whatever it is, and it can just print money or easily issue debt to fund that.

You, a single actor, probably wouldn't be a significant factor. However, an international government or corporate entity owning hundreds of thousands of acres and exploiting resources on the land and routing them back to their home country can be problematic. It places additional strain on limited resources and the profits are not spent in the local economy...just sent overseas. Absentee ownership of non-productive real estate can also drive up the costs of housing for citizens, making homeownership more difficult and driving down wealth in the middle class.

epolanski 2y ago
I see it completely opposite of you. 1) The foreign entity is investing where Americans aren't. 2) There is a very huge risk for the foreign entity to own such an operation because of political changes. By law or decree the US or the state can always nationalize these lands. Thus, ultimately, I see no issue there.
- gwbrooks 2y ago
  1. Foreign entities are also investing in land that is strategically or tactically important -- agricultural land is a good example of the former; land near military bases an example of the latter. China has demonstrated a willingness to do both. 2. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. The Constitution provides no power for the federal government to acquire land without just compensation, which courts have regularly held to mean fair market value. Put another way: The feds can likely devise a path for buying your land, but can't outright nationalize it. Changing that is not a matter of presidential decree or even a law by Congress; it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which is an extraordinarily heavy political and policy lift.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    I still see no issue, the government can always buy it out at fair price, whatever it is, and it can just print money or easily issue debt to fund that.