Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrTonyD | Hacker News Reader

This is a real problem. For a while I was running my own company and making more than I could spend - so I bought a house in a nice older neighborhood - walking distance to the beach, restaurants, and a pier, and very pleasant. But I soon discovered that most of my neighbors were never there - perhaps 10% of the houses were owned by wealthy people who would visit once or twice a year. So most residents of my town can't afford to live there - while the wealthy can afford to buy those properties and leave them empty.

Something is very wrong with the US economy and needs to be fixed. I don't want things to be "fair" only for the rich - I want things to be "fair" for our entire society.

View on HN

If the owners are paying property tax on (very expensive) homes then the extra revenue should be very beneficial to poor people who use city services and contribute little to no tax revenue. If there is no property tax, or it is abated (NYC), or the city prevents new construction, then it is another issue.

It's the lower middle class who used to be able to afford to own a home in these areas that now can't, that are really hurt. I've seen this happen in small towns around rural upstate NY in the adirondack park where wealthy people from the city spend massive amounts of money on property and spend a holiday or two per year in them. The economies of these small towns are generally almost non existent and the couple holidays a year isn't enough to lift them up to match the ridiculous rise in real estate and property. It's a really unfortunate situation.

Small town in rural area seems could enable more construction so that people could live in new houses. Don't forget second homes pay taxes.

While that's how it's supposed to work in theory; do you really still buy into that bullshit? You can't see how that's just another excuse to let the rich keep raping the world at their convenience? Ever been to Lisbon? I swear half the city is vacant by now, all the old beautiful buildings; and poor people have less money than ever.

In Lisbon, I'm told, the issue is that people can't afford rents that would pay for renovations. Also in 2009 or so the locals told me the regulations on how the old buildings were to be renovated were quite strict, adding to the cost.

In Lisbon there's been quite a bit of foreign investment due to their visa program so you have the property market propped up from that.

> most neighbors ... 10%

Was it most or was it 10%?

Edit: I got downvoted for being confused? Please read my comment as pleasantly-toned, not snarky.

Your question was reasonable. I wondered the same thing. Perhaps it was misinterpreted as signalling some sort of defense of conspicuous consumption / flaunting of wealth. To be clear, that would be an irrational and unfounded interpretation, but such are the hazards of wading into emotionally charged issues (even if you aren't really wading in, just asking an honest question).

The 10% was who visited once or twice a year. Another 10% were never seen over the several years I lived there, and another 10% I saw several times per year. I didn't mean for the number itself to distract from the overall gist - my apologies. And, of course, those are all just rough estimates.

If you are making more money than you could spend then a lot of people would consider you to be rich. If you want more 'fairness', why not lead by example and donate all of your extra money to housing oriented charities?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com