Except for the part where you have to rip out everything and build it virtually from scratch due to the severe lack of plumbing infrastructure to individual spaces in the same way that apartments require.
It sounds great, but realistically it’s almost easier to just demo the buildings and begin from the foundation.
Either way the issue isn’t the ability to construct apartments and/or condos, it’s the land being owned by people who either want it for a commercial use-case or it’s just being held for value increase.
I am fine with demoing the buidlings and creating new apartments / condos if that’s what it takes. It just seems like this wouldn’t be true for all buildings, but maybe most. You’re right that the owners of these properties are placing a huge bet on their buildings being used for commercial use again. The city should tax vacant buildings higher to discourage squatting on these properties by commercial investors.
Essentially people will hold onto property in order to make more money on it through land value inflation.
If we tax the crap out of property that isn’t being used, then either the tenant will do something with it or sell it to someone who will, instead of just waiting for the market to double their money while they play golf.
It seemed sensible when the economist Henry George postulated it as the solution for wealth inequality and the seeming rise of material desire that the uber-rich cause in the market. Unfortunately no one listened and the landlords won, and now we’re here.
Except for the part where you have to rip out everything and build it virtually from scratch due to the severe lack of plumbing infrastructure to individual spaces in the same way that apartments require.
It sounds great, but realistically it’s almost easier to just demo the buildings and begin from the foundation.
Either way the issue isn’t the ability to construct apartments and/or condos, it’s the land being owned by people who either want it for a commercial use-case or it’s just being held for value increase.
I am fine with demoing the buidlings and creating new apartments / condos if that’s what it takes. It just seems like this wouldn’t be true for all buildings, but maybe most. You’re right that the owners of these properties are placing a huge bet on their buildings being used for commercial use again. The city should tax vacant buildings higher to discourage squatting on these properties by commercial investors.
Land.
Value.
Tax.
Unless that’s what I just described (a land value tax), I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
It’s exactly what you described.
Essentially people will hold onto property in order to make more money on it through land value inflation.
If we tax the crap out of property that isn’t being used, then either the tenant will do something with it or sell it to someone who will, instead of just waiting for the market to double their money while they play golf.
Seems sensible to me.
It seemed sensible when the economist Henry George postulated it as the solution for wealth inequality and the seeming rise of material desire that the uber-rich cause in the market. Unfortunately no one listened and the landlords won, and now we’re here.
landlords with corporate money and lobbyists, I imagine. hopefully some change can happen on a city level.
But, hear me out; Poop buckets.