The Planning Commission in my town has made great strides in opening the downtown business core district to more "by right" land uses, but that doesn't do jack shit to actually make it economically possible for people to build or rebuild.
We have vacant plots immediately adjacent to the most valuable properties in town that have been vacant for decades, and millions in public funds are paid out in bribes to banks, developers, and landowners each time to get anything at all in production.
@gcvsa how is the profit per new unit less than the marginal extra profit of overpriced rent on existing units? Even assuming that the developer owns every existing unit, would doubling their number of renters be a net loss?
@gcvsa homeowners can only realize those gains by moving out though, so most aren't actually getting that imagined wealth. The cost of adding supply is spread over years of building life, so it only seems profitable if all potential builders own significant existing housing, and still profit limited by the smaller number of renters.
@enobacon In the end, the ultimate proof in the pudding is that we have a housing crisis. If it were more profitable to build than to not build, we wouldn't be in this situation.
The market abhors a vacuum. If there's a way to make a profit, someone, somewhere will exploit it.
@gcvsa not everyone has the financial leverage to undertake that level of development, no collective financing options for community built housing. The few big players might be coming out ahead by sitting on vacant land, but other models with fewer middlemen might be viable, if other owners can get in. The market isn't free if there's captured government and finance involved.
Add comment