zlacker

This is veering into a realm of hypotheticals and academia that ignore real world reality and humanity.

You: "row upon row of vacant luxury properties represent significant capital inflow!"

Real world: vacant luxury houses can cause blight and other problems just as much as low-income housing.

Also, the value of the vacant property does not decrease because it is occupied. Unless your claim is that the local burden of people existing in a community is larger than the combination of their property and other contributions.

So an occupied property represents significant capital inflows AND enhances economic well-being on a per capita basis, AND does so moreso than the vacant, because there's the capital inflow AND the local spending.

Otherwise you end up with the absurdist trope of talking about public budgets as "homes and communities are worth more if no-one lives in them".

"Assume a spherical cow..." "Assume a row of oceanfront villas that have roads and sewage and utilities that require less maintenance because they're all vacant."

Phrasing it, as you repeatedly do, as "envy-driven" and "anti-free market" and libertarian ideology is sophistry. "You just don't get economics" - no, people understand that housing isn't a purely economic construct.

>>FireBe+(OP)
The assertion that vacant luxury houses inherently cause blight overlooks the reality that many such properties are well-maintained, contributing to local tax revenues without burdening public services—a far cry from the notion of blight. Indeed, exclusive communities with predominantly absentee owners serve as a prime example where properties retain or even increase in value due to their exclusivity and limited use, benefiting the broader community through infrastructure contributions without proportional utilization.

The idea that homes might be ‘worth more if nobody lives in them’ reflects a misunderstanding of market dynamics in exclusive areas. These properties offer significant economic benefits by providing substantial tax revenues and maintaining high property values, which support public budgets and infrastructure with minimal physical wear and tear. This scenario underscores the often-overlooked reality that absentee ownership can contribute positively to a community’s economic and physical landscape.

Furthermore, dismissing the economic construct of housing ignores the foundational principles of supply and demand that govern real estate markets. All aspects of housing, from affordability to availability, are indeed shaped by economic forces. Acknowledging this doesn’t detract from the importance of community and social well-being; rather, it provides a basis for understanding and addressing housing challenges in a manner grounded in reality, not ideology.

>>alchem+tB
All of this studiously ignores the fact that occupied homes provide exactly the same tax revenue, the same property value, support the same budgets as those vacant homes. Yes, increased wear and tear comes with occupation. But you pretzel yourself to act like the people in the homes contribute nothing to the local economy to subsidize and account for this increased wear and tear.

>>FireBe+gO
Unoccupied homes don’t contribute a capita that’s not pretzel anything. The fact you don’t like rich people owning homes they don’t use or live in, doesn’t make them bad for prosperity just because you want them to be. Locaions with that phenomenon are some of the most prosperous in the world.