Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j4r47o0 wrote

Reply to comment by jeffwulf in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins

the idea of entire areas owned 90% by 1 company doesn't set off any alarms for you?

when highrise apartment buildings are built it's not like there's that many millionaires to choose from who could possibly afford to build & own it.

0

jeffwulf t1_j4r7jhh wrote

Depends on how big an entire area is. It would have to be pretty sizable before it's meaningful.

There's like 30,000,000 millionaires in the US alone.

1

[deleted] t1_j4r8xv3 wrote

psh regular retirees are millionaires, that means nothing. especially if you'd have to liquidate every investment & property to get that $1mil.

an average, basic 100 unit apartment building would cost $37+ million to build. so an individual building an apartment building would probably have $100+ million net worth. high end apartments could cost $100 million to build & require someone with $250million.

and then they need to charge like it cost $370 million or they'll never make their money back

but in reality, that's rare, a billion dollar corporation is going to be the one building these apartments. similarly, if youve ever seen a new neighborhood built, every house is built by 1 company. the difference is that the houses are sold to individuals, creating diverse suppliers. where the apartments/rentals continue to be owned by the rich & who then have the opportunity to control the market since not many people can afford to compete with billionaires

0