Hey there, found your journal through the Libertarianism community.
I don't claim to be a real estate expert (especially not as it relates to the Australian markets), I was wondering if you could clarify why someone would have an incentive to let a building go derelict rather than convert into something that generates revenue - unless they lacked the funds to make the improvements, in which case higher taxes will not help that process.
If land owners are sitting on the land speculating that it's value will rise, why should they not be allowed to do so? I don't know how I feel about the government punishing low time preference to increase supply. But perhaps I misunderstand you...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 07:06 pm (UTC)I don't claim to be a real estate expert (especially not as it relates to the Australian markets), I was wondering if you could clarify why someone would have an incentive to let a building go derelict rather than convert into something that generates revenue - unless they lacked the funds to make the improvements, in which case higher taxes will not help that process.
If land owners are sitting on the land speculating that it's value will rise, why should they not be allowed to do so? I don't know how I feel about the government punishing low time preference to increase supply. But perhaps I misunderstand you...