What are the mechanics of how this works? If I agree to buy a property for a million dollars, does the city get a chance to match that price?
- they don't intend to buy, in which case you can proceed with the sale
- they buy at the price you've set
- they make a counter-offer, which you have the right to refuse but then you also renounce to sell
If there's a dispute on the price (especially in the third case), a tribunal will decide the eventual price, "based on the recent sale prices of similar properties".
How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks. That's bs
If government is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the government counter offer or I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors to set the price at something very close to that anyways
And if I don't like it, I'm legally not allowed to sell?
Ridiculous
Even if you don't think houses should be infinitely appreciating assets, which I don't, your asset worth should still be as valuable as someone is willing to pay for them, not controlled by a cartel style government
That's an assumption on your part. Both the owner and the city can mount a legal case as to why their price is the correct one. In practice, this is often done by comparison with other properties in the same area and with the same characteristics. The judge also gets to visit the actual property to have its own perspective on it. Both the owner and the city have access to the same data when it comes to properties sold and bought, and must establish their cases based on concrete notarial deeds.
There are indeed cases where the city makes a counter-proposal with a price that is significantly lower than market rates, but you have court rulings that reject these and side with the owner. I don't think it's perfect, but it's not one-sided like you describe.
It can be frustrating, but eventually the city is not just a bunch of houses piled up in a completely decentralized way, and the preemption right, which has exceptions, for example properties recently built cannot be preempted, and which isn't automatic, i.e. there are multiple recourses for owners, is there so that the city has some leeway to conduct policy with regards to housing.
Also, I'd like to point out that when you say:
> I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government
It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical:
> If ~government~ a large private company is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the ~government~ large private company's counter offer or ~I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors to set the price at something very close to that anyways~
With, of course, the downside that there's no system-level recourse when the large private company uses its power to either: - undercut your "market value" of your home and force you to sell - or make living in your home terrible due to it successfully buying up and controlling all of the land _surrounding_ your home
Both lead to what you are saying you don't like -- some _external_ actor coming in and controlling "how much [your] home is worth."
Yeah that's kind of my point!
This would very obviously be predatory if it were a real estate conglomerate, which is something government should protect people from, not actually just become themselves!!
> Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective
This is completely irrelevant to the topic, because in this case we are talking about a situation where land is being treated as a private asset, and a government is acting like a private real estate conglomerate
You can challenge it on grounds of what "should" be, but that's an entirely different discussion
What's your take on anti-price-gauging laws? Should the government "cap" the price of food and bottled water after a natural disaster, or should the seller determine how much it's worth, as determined by supply & demand?
Paris property remains extremely expensive.
"if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you that [list of options here]"
It seemed like the city has right of first refusal. If they make a counter offer you are then either obligated to accept their offer, or go to tribunal, or not sell
there's a French wiki page on this: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_pr%C3%A9emption_urbai...
But basically, yes, the city has 2 months to match the price. The city can also offer a lower price, which can be refused (so no sale at all) or can be argued in front of a special judge, who'd rule if the price offered by the city is acceptable, depending on the local housing market.
It's not a rule that's specific to Paris, but which is applicable in most French cities.
Sounds like every property sale is a political calculation ready for grease.