One that has gotten me and some of my cohort is the idea that if you have a below average income you have to live in an ugly run down neighborhood.
But a few too many beautification projects and property taxes start to go up. Now you’re pricing people out of their neighborhood. With renters they don’t even get the benefit of selling their house.
Most of the solutions I can think of could be easily gamed by speculators, which makes me wonder if the others just have a flaw I don’t see.
This only happens in unique context, though. If you were in a theoretical environment where there wasn't any demand for beautified neighborhoods the value of the housing wouldn't rise if you beautified it.
The circumstance though isn't unique and is applicable in a lot of different markets. Investing in almost anything makes it more valuable. Be that housing, a country, a company, a farm or a person. That is why education is such a potent force multiplier.
Housing though has an elephant in the room being how bad the situation has gotten. Its the same class of problem as healthcare because both aren't luxury optional goods. People need housing, and that housing need requires parameters that are in conflict with one another. The worst part is that because sustainability of housing trumps all other aspects of it that means you can easily find yourself in an unsafe, insecure environment out of necessity. Beautification makes the living more enjoyable and prosperous but is trumped by the cost benefit analysis of living there. When people are already sacrificing personal safety for job security they quickly get pushed out if you make the housing more valuable for any reason but enhanced job security.
But a few too many beautification projects and property taxes start to go up. Now you’re pricing people out of their neighborhood. With renters they don’t even get the benefit of selling their house.
Most of the solutions I can think of could be easily gamed by speculators, which makes me wonder if the others just have a flaw I don’t see.