Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ragnarork | Hacker News Reader

Basically, 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

- 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".

View on HN

I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government

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

Whether you like it or not the government does tell you how much your house is worth through monetary policy.

> I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbors

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.

But the market is completely distorted because the government is close to a monopsony. Especially if they "preempt" an entire neighborhood. There's no private sales to point the tribunal to in that case so they have utter control over the price

Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective. But, it's worthwhile to ask this question so that we can understand why it could make sense to give the public a say in how land is allocated and used.

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."

> It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical:

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

This isn't some government rug-pull on your idyllic picket-fenced suburban house. You might find housing to be different in other parts of the world.

That's what libertarians want until it's time to use eminent domain to build a freeway so they can exercise their freedoms. Then it's fine to cap your property value to something else because you can always prop the goal of progress as very important. But if you want to prop something else, dare I say something left leaning, something they're not interested in, then it's outrageous.

> How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks

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?

Now I'm curious about what's your take on them

I'm generally not against the existence/enforcement of price smoothing laws (over time - as the intention with anti-price-gauging laws, or across the market, with market comparisons). I think it strikes a good balance when bridging the macro to the micro.

You've misunderstood. You can choose what your sale price is. You may or may not clear the market (find a buyer) at that price. But, if you do, you may have to sell to the government. You choose the price but not the buyer.

Paris property remains extremely expensive.

Based on the parent comment, I don't think I've misunderstood

"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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com