There is this nice empty plot of land without a house on it. I should be able to pay next to nothing for it because nobody is using it. Forget everyone else who might have been interested in the past. Forget the current owner who bought it legitimately. I deserve it because I want it and don't want to pay a fair market price for it.
People deserve the fruits of their own labor. They do not "deserve" to charge rent to others. And appreciation of real estate without productive labor to improve that particular parcel is collecting the work of others.
Buying a house from a homeowner gives no money to the original builder, or the first human being to inhabit that piece of land. Do you feel guilty about getting shelter without paying the price of admission?
Buying land does in fact give me the right to forbid everyone else from building up and altering the face of my property. If enough like-minded individuals do this you get this you get a neighborhood.
As a property owner, I don't care what you feel is just. I worked hard, saved money and invested wisely. We've been in a bull market for over 10 years now, if you want change then put some money down and start doing something about. All the internet points in the world won't win you a high rise apartment
The world is full of people who have unmet needs. Why should this property owner have to give up his rights simply because you and others feel bad about the victims of the sale?
Feel bad every time you overpay for your own pretentious northern California rent.
The argument against it is that a vacant property imposes very little cost upon society. It doesn't require fire protection, it doesnt add children to the education system, it doesn't use any municipal resources. If it's an eyesore or presents a hazard in some way, sure, but simply being vacant or "underutilized" doesn't do that. Why should it pay to simply exist?
Agreed. I've never understood this assumption that one is entitled to get something for nothing merely by virtue of owning a house. Investment is just another form of gambling dressed up in the garb of respectability..
I think his point is, you don't get to pass wealth not earned by you to your heirs. You had nothing to do with 300k to 10m appreciation, so you nor your heirs are entitled to it. The appreciation is in land, not in the small improvements to the house. Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings.
So essentially you have no use for land/housing for extended period of time but you want to keep it. That's the textbook definition of hoarding real estate.
And please don't give this BS about generations. Just ask yourself: would you sell your grandgrandpa's home if you knew tomorrow its price was not up but got halved, day after day? There's the answer about your true motivations.
> Prove I didn't stop by for a few days N-1 years ago.
Stopping by != using as residence. I stop by local Mcd occasionally, don't mean I live there.
I'm vehemently not a communist but this sort of entitlement is cancer on humanity. Land is zero sum and a commons. These things are never not regulated in a healthy society. Even in US owning estate never means you are free to do anything you want with it, even if you live in it. Not hoarding it is only another one of those rules, sadly not supported by law enough.
The worst part about this concept is that home owners that don't own the land will try to sell you the house like they own the land. This is why I never look at these properties. They should be cheaper, but they are not.
reply