I wouldn't be willing to dump a significant chunk of my wealth into a structure built by a company who makes a point to ignore building codes and zoning laws.
They bought it while fully aware of those shortcomings. It’s like people buying cheap land next to an airport, building a house, complaining about the aircraft noise.
I wish just one of you droids parroting this argument was actually old enough to have done it. My parents own a property like this. They are never going to sell it because (among other things) they have invested more money in upkeep and renovations to make it just the way they want it than it is worth to an average buyer, plus they like having it for family get-togethers. It's simply not at all the investment vehicle you starry-eyed dreamers think it is.
> Landlords don't provide housing, property developers do.
With rare exceptions, developers want nothing to do with owning the properties they build. They want to finish the build and get those properties off their books and close the contruction loans and move on.
So somone has to own the property after build is complete.
The property we invested in is derelict - it is not fit for habitation!
When we have rebuilt it it will be in great condition and available for a family to live in. Why is this investment a problem - do you prefer seeing many ruins?
I was complaining about the insane bureaucracy we have to go through, before we can even start rebuilding ie rents have risen because of supply problems and is not just a demand problem.
> Doesn't that make you not want to buy property in the first place?
If it was a common problem, then yes. But it's relatively uncommon, and to be honest, I'd rather have the existing system in place where people can legally occupy unused buildings, because there is a lot of them around here. And lots of property owners just keep them empty for years until their "investment" gives them the returns they want, which to me is a bigger problem than okupas.
And they're clearly not interested in making money since they've abandoned the project and are going bankrupt, so none of what you said has any validity here.
Should houses collapse when the builder goes out of business? Should people be banned from living in them or making custom repairs because "What about the company's creditors!"
Precluding a third party from performing after market-maintenance on a dead product and forbidding a current user to continue using something they paid for isn't capitalist--it's anticapitalist and purely spiteful.
You're saying that because they don't have the financial wiggle room to make their property something you want to look at they should GTFO?
reply