"Todd J. Binkley" wrote:
> An interesting financing proposal for urban housing appears in an
> article at The New Colonist:
> An exerpt:
> "The city puts up the money to fund construction of a wide range of
> housing types.
> Occupants and nonprofit landlords have all the rights of traditional
> owners--except the right to sell for a profit. You buy one of these
> properties and you can live there as long as you live, let your kids
> live there after you, paint it, add a hot tub, whatever--but when you
> leave, you get back only the equity you have paid in and whatever
> improvements you've made. Your home becomes a place where you live, not
> something you invest in to make money. There is no speculation. Prices
> are stable."
I find a big problem with this because it does not allow for individuality in
building types and who cares if the property values go up (or down). What problem
would this be trying to solve, and what is wrong with the current system of selling
a piece of property or a house and getting whatever people will pay for it? No
matter what the price of a house or property is, there is always value beyond that
of the price, such as is the property next to a river, or refinery. Now just one
last question, who would set the initial price?