3 ms·
Wait -- so you're saying that Disney has a moral right to buy up land at a fixed price, because they had the bright idea to build a theme park there? That Disne
by URSpider94 13y ago
Wait -- so you're saying that Disney has a moral right to buy up land at a fixed price, because they had the bright idea to build a theme park there? That Disney should be able to freeze the valuation of all the lots they want to buy, after the neighbors find out that Disney is buying?
Or is it just that you believe that ONLY the landholders should be able to profit by raising their sales price, and not some third party who may have "invested" his/her time and money in figuring out what Disney's future plans are and starts "front running" Disney on land acquisition?
It feels like the more we discuss, the grayer the situation gets.
- hackinthebochs 13y agoA third party should not be able to profit at the expense of both buyer and seller without adding some service to them. The seller should be able to sell for whatever they want, and if they know Disney is selling and they raise their price accordingly, then so be it. I'm assuming you're drawing an analogy between this scenario and trading on the stock market. The difference with the market these types of deals are expected--people with different levels of understanding will make trades in their own interest.
- harryh 13y agoIn this case the service that the third party is providing is telling the land owner that Disney has arrived on the market. That's, potentially, an extremely valuable service!