Condominiums are a speculative investment in the first place. Many people are reluctant to buy expensive condos because they never go up in value, always down, and are very difficult to sell when it comes time to retire and move to Florida. Yet they are as expensive as houses. A massive investment without the potential upside of an actual investment. Combine that with the lack of infrastructure described and I am shocked anyone was gullible enough to buy them in the first place.
Regardless of the excuse they use, the auctioning of unsold units is probably the only way the developers can come close to recouping their investment. They will probably take a significant loss even then, but they are hoping than when they have more people living in the condos the empty units will sell better without more auctions.
It's a bad situation for everyone, but most of them have themselves to blame. The developers built the units, the owners bought them. This would probably not have gone well for anyone if the bottom had NOT fallen out of the real estate market.
Is The Gulch also in this proposed 3 mile tourism development zone around the proposed Convention Center. I am not sure exactly what that means, but I assume it means a "tourist" tax on businesses, etc. within that zone. If this is the case, all these great amenities for Gulch living will tax you like a tourist. Please correct me if I am wrong, cause I hate to be piling on...
Good question, Kew. I have no idea.
Obviously the answer is for the government to force the developers to let the homeless people stay in the empty condos for free. I am sure the people that purchased condos would welcome their new neighbors with open arms.
We could extend the program to include all the foreclosed homes as well. Just force the banks to let homeless people stay in the empty homes for free. I mean the government owns these banks now anyway for the most part, so really the banks should be happy to oblige.
Now if there are still more homeless people after filling all of these empty spaces, I am sure the general public will understand when the government decides to force you to house homeless people in your homes as well. I mean it is really your civic duty to do so, and I am sure everybody here is more than willing to pitch in right?
Jim:
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
SB - just send your subscription fee of $500.00 and I will add you to the list.
In the Williamsburgh section of Brooklyn, a number of developers built a lot of condos... and they haven't been selling. The City is starting to place homeless families in them. I don't know what kind of payments are being made to the developers for their use because these are definitely not people who could even think about buying a $300,000 or so condo unit. But for a a few decades NUC has seen more high-end rentals and condos built. Bloomberg has touted a plan to build moderate income housing but I don't think many plans have actually been begun. The last mayor who actually got a lot of moderate to low income housing built was David Dinkins. And no, the real luxury condos of Manhattan are not in this homeless program. Bloomberg has many ties to the real estate community.
'The last mayor who actually got a lot of moderate to low income housing built was David Dinkins.'
One good thing can be said about this area, though it happened on the other side of the Virginia border and not here in TN.
Not too far from where my partner works, in Bristol, VA, a new rent-controlled development for low income individuals and families was completed earlier this year. They are now open for business and offer sliding-scale rents based on tenant income. I believe it was part of a state program rather than a Bristol city program, but I could be wrong.
Commenting by HaloScan
