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 (62732)	4/25/2005 6:36:28 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Elroy, you got all the first part correct. Excellent. But completely beside the point. Your commentary on the brilliant economists Winn and Sowell was also misdirected. I was not talking about taxes, but restrictions [with no resulting tax take, though I believe Americans pay taxes on capital gains on their houses if they don't buy another house when they sell]. I'll have one more go at explaining, then leave it with you to think what you like. Of course a house which is replaced by an apartment building will mean the land is more valuable. But if an apartment building is not allowed to replace the house, and no other construction in the area is allowed, but big demand to live in the area arises because of various reasons, then the price of the existing dwelling will, multi-choice question here: Go up? Go down? Yes, [assuming you got it right], the house will go up in price because the competition to buy it will be greater than otherwise. Mqurice

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (62732)	4/25/2005 9:56:28 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74559

Obviously the land that has a development restriction on it is worth less. The question is what happens to the land that is already developed or still available for development. It is now scarcer (and has improved amenities in terms of open space near it) and so one would expect it to have a higher price than in the absence of the restrictions on the other land. Now your argument that the restriction reduces the total economic activity in a given area and lowers the demand is interesting. How that plays out in the end I'm not sure at this stage. I agreed that Glaeser's analysis (what I saw of it) seemed simplistic.