111–120 of 260 posts
Why are wealthy people so much into golf? It seems like the dullest of activities. Is it just because other rich people say they like golf, and they're all such conformists?
> But some said they always felt like they were privileged to see the city like this and felt like other people should be able to share in it. I cannot understand this line of thinking. I wonder if I can get a set of keys to the author's flat, so I can "share in it".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also a thing in London where certain views towards St Pauls Cathedral are protected.
London isn't exactly a model of urban planning. There is a massive shortage of housing. And you end up with all new developments concentrated in a handful of areas.
> They’re investments, not really meant for living in. They cast these huge shadows and block views—really change the skyline—just so they can stand empty. That is definitely one of the saddest parts for me. These billionaires (many of whom got their wealth in shady circumstances) are just using these condos to park their money. I may think NFTs are insane but at least when people with too much money park their wealt…
Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. > They cast these huge shadows and block views Talk about first world problems. Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.
For the past 30 years this has not happened even once in a major city. Developer will not build so many building as to drip the price. Maybe its time to accept that you are perpetuating a myth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealthy people minus a few eccentrics are most certainly not parking their money in NFTs. The crazy $69MM Beeple headline was actually a purchase by an NFT related company from what I understand. Not withstanding unoccupied real estate investments are a problem in every major city. It's usually wealthy foreign investors living far away in particular...e.g. Russia -> London, China -> Singapore/Vancouver, etc. really s…
While not good for the local housing market for sure, the country does gain from a ton of foreign illicit income being converted to its own currency and an easily seizable asset conveniently parked within its borders. Cities and counties can also implement vacancy taxes and such to somewhat lessen this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest answer is land value tax
Except that’s explicitly discouraging vacant lots and encouraging tall buildings. These owners can afford the tax better than anyone.
Meanwhile city coffers fill up with cash that can be used to build social housing.
The only downside to LVT on non primary residences is the epic political fight it would require against the super rich.
> “They all talked about having a golf simulator room—I’ve never heard of this thing before, but they all had it,” Why are wealthy people so much into golf? It seems like the dullest of activities. Is it just because other rich people say they like golf, and they're all such conformists?
Jokes aside, it's because it is a way to signal that you are part of the in-group by sharing in a particular activity. And what better way than to make that the kind of activity that implicitly shows off your privilege? Golf involves a large amount of grass fields set aside and maintained just for you and your friends that can't be used for anything else, and spending time on it means you can afford to not use your time on something more productive. It's gatekeeping by its very nature. It's showing off how rich you are by being wasteful with two of the most precious resources available (I think there's even a name for this in the context of evolutionary biology).
Having said that, I won't deny that it can be enjoyable in the same sense that going for a walk can be enjoyable. Going on (the equivalent of) a walk, together or alone, is a healthy thing to do. But as a social activity those other factors also play a role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London isn't exactly a model of urban planning. There is a massive shortage of housing. And you end up with all new developments concentrated in a handful of areas.
I agree but if 100,000 homes became available tomorrow in London they’d sell in an instant. I don’t think any number will solve it - the problem is existing homes not being lived in and being used as income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. > They cast these huge shadows and block views Talk about first world problems. Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.
Yeah, more density, because all that matters is the size of cities and their economy. 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house? Who cares? 90% of grownups never plant even a tomatoes? What does it matter! Families of four or more confined to single-bathroom, two-bedroom apartments? The cosier, the better! The most important bit is that the cheap workforce reaches their dull jobs in ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that’s explicitly discouraging vacant lots and encouraging tall buildings. These owners can afford the tax better than anyone.
LVT turns an asset into a liability. The fact that they can afford it isn't the point. They won't want to afford it if it's a liability unless they live in it or can rent it out. Meanwhile city coffers fill up with cash that can be used to build social housing. The only downside to LVT on non primary residences is the epic political fight it would require against the super rich.
If you wanted to design a building to pay as little land tax as possible, this is what it would look like.