5 ms·
It's counter-intuitive but the majority of housing has to be non-owner-occupied for prices to fall. >making property taxes substantially higher for non-owner-o
by closedloop129 4y ago
It's counter-intuitive but the majority of housing has to be non-owner-occupied for prices to fall.
>making property taxes substantially higher for non-owner-occupied property.
>but everyone who owns property would be against it because they don't want to see their assets drop in value.
After the initial dip, prices will rise again because residents will vote out every city government that tries to implement zoning that doesn't increase the value of their property.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago> It's counter-intuitive but the majority of housing has to be non-owner-occupied for prices to fall It seems likely the only way this happens is if the majority of real estate is owned by corporations or governments. Replace "corporations" with "wealthy nobility" and we don't need to imagine how that plays out. Historically that's never been good for workers.
- closedloop129 4y agoDon't forget that you are living in a democracy. If the tenants can make the rules they don't have to repeat history. However, as the zoning laws show, they are short-sighted, and most likely will repeat history.
- bluefirebrand 4y agoDemocracy is a system that rises out of power to the people. People who own nothing have little power.
- ethbr0 4y ago> It's counter-intuitive but the majority of housing has to be non-owner-occupied for prices to fall. How do you see this being so?