The old mantra holds--like any publicly available asset--if it were a great deal--it would already have been sold!
The old mantra holds--like any publicly available asset--if it were a great deal--it would already have been sold!
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm curious what you have to back that statement up. Detroit is rapidly losing population[0] with no end in sight. Typically for prices to rise, there has to be some kind of demand. I guess you could just gut the supply by wholesale tearing everything down and seeing if you can sell what's left.
0. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...
I don't think it's unreasonable to hold an asset for that length of time if the projected value makes it worthwhile.
Ghost towns say otherwise. Property usually appreciates, given enough time, but it's never a guarantee; Detroit is dying-globalization killed manufacturing-it's a bad bet to think it'll appreciate when much of the city is already abandoned.
Can Detroit rebounce? Surely. But I don't think a smart investor would make a bet on it, outside of specific neighbourhoods and projects.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/05/detroit-city-c...
If Detroit ever returns it'll be slowly, organically, and not driven by speculation. Nearby neighborhoods are more attractive and inexpensive than downtown (Dearborn, Livonia, etc). Until higher-end businesses and lifestyles return to central Detroit, (not to mention basic city services), surrounding city property values will never climb.
I wish Dan Gilbert the best, but having grown up in the area, I've heard it all before.