Local government is, by and large, NIMBY and thus on the side of the megalandlords.
Local government does not compete with property investors, it is already controlled by them.
Local government is, by and large, NIMBY and thus on the side of the megalandlords.
Local government does not compete with property investors, it is already controlled by them.
Something tells me JP Morgan would have an even tougher time getting past the NIMBYs.
You are right that NIMBYism isn't good for developing new housing, which is what JP Morgan is trying to do. How do they get past that initial hump? I don't know, but they obviously think they can.
But once that housing is built, there will be every incentive for JP Morgan to go ultra-NIMBY to protect their investment. Luckily, local government is very easy to push in that direction.
It's not perfect but absolutely works better than direct democracy which has led to things like Prop 13 and it's endless extensions
Would that even be desirable? I feel that serving the desires of the voters is an essential (and desirable) property of democracy.
That's the reason for rule of law, human rights, and limited government - to protect those without power. The people with power always have had self-determination.
The purpose of human rights is to protect those people.
> I say "slight minority" because quite a few "landlords" are ... individual people who saved up and now let one property.
I agree, but that seems to be changing as these large investors buy up homes. That change is the point.