Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (62671)	4/25/2005 12:23:42 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The short answer is -- all that land foolishly allocated to parks does not affect price -- because it reduces land for employment and wealth creation in the same proportion that it reduces land for homes and wealth dissipation. . . Development beyond that level occurs elsewhere. This is an interesting argument. One I am going to have to think about... Comparing New York to Las Vegas I'd read his stuff second hand or maybe in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. I thought it was an interesting idea, but did wonder about this aspect you raise as they didn't seem to be controlling for city size. Looking at Northwest Europe I see high house prices in rural areas or small towns, compared to the US. Or at least it looks that way. In terms of entire metro areas the East Coast seems to be the most sprawly area in the US and probably the entire world. I don't see strong planning control around Boston etc. except to encourage big lots and more sprawl.