1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6584/should-we-ban-luxury-condos/

Should We Ban Luxury Condos?

May 2, 2007 by

It’s wonderful to have visions and dreams, but thoroughly evil and destructive when we seek to have government accomplish them on our behalf. The means, not the dream, is the problem. It ends up taking away liberty and creating unanticipated forms of destruction. This is the great lesson that economics has to teach us, but it is evident that the message has not stuck. Let me give an example from my own hometown. A new movement is growing to ban luxury condos on grounds that they are pushing out student housing… FULL ARTICLE

{ 6 comments }

Brad May 2, 2007 at 11:54 am

The market is already twisted and neither student housing or luxury condos would exist there if it weren’t for the invasion of State subsidy in the form of State Universities. The resources would be used elsewhere and debating the use of resources already highly bent by the gravitational pull of Statism seems to be a waste of time.

I’m not too put out that artificially stimulated demand for condos for boosters may be in jeopardy. What does the Auburn Head Coach make? Who paid for the Stadium Auburn plays in? It seems that college football is an artificially supported market, just as the institutions themselves are (which of course results in the higher demand by lesser wits who spend most of their time drinking).

I say yes to pure markets and the proper allocation of resources. If all were private matters, the students, the instution, the builders, the boosters, I’d certainly swing in on the side of development that best allocates resources. This seems to be just a small submarket set of forces riding on the back of rampant Statism.

alt1985 May 3, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Great article. People think they can petition the government do anything for them. Many of these students will prefer what they consider the “overpriced” condos to the conditions that would end up overtaking Auburn in later years if there was no economic progress.

There is a similar debate taking place in Homewood, Alabama, regarding an area in Edgewood with a strip of businesses that has been around for a long time. A developer wants to take the land, demolish the buildings, and then build condos with businesses on the bottom level of the complex. Of course, many citizens in Homewood do not want it to happen. However, they aren’t the ones making the decision for the businesses. If the owner of the building(s) decides to sell, that’s up to him, not the collective citizenry.

Browning May 9, 2007 at 2:54 am

This is a very good article. I can witness such a development (rent restrictions -> lack of affordable housing) in Munich and other areas of the Old Europe.

billwald May 15, 2007 at 10:22 am

The opposite is happening in the Puget Sound area. In Seattle, a waterfront park was built that will mostly function to raise the price of high rise $multi-million condos across the street.

In Everett, there is a waterfront project and a riverfront project which has transferred real estate to $millionaire condo developers at a dirt cheap price. The working class is subsidizing the waterfront developments for rich people and will pragmatically be excluded from the land they paid for. The Port of Everett project was sold as a marina expansion. Then the Port noted the shortage was for slips over 50 feet long. How many working class people have a pleasure boat over 50 feet? THEN there was news release stating the millionaire condo owners will SHARE the marina with the rest of us. For the first 100 years this was a working waterfront for fishing and shipping.

TLWP Sam May 15, 2007 at 10:26 am

Score one for the good guys then?

Luxury Land Developer SC March 2, 2009 at 1:04 am

This community provide a way of life and relaxed in idea and decorated by likely magnificence.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: