
Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments - cubecul
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investment
======
supernumerary
Detroit is implementing a program along these lines. They are selling
properties in so called 'bad neighborhoods' and mandating that they be
rehabbed and renovated within 6 months to code.

The average cost of rehabbing a home bought for $1000~$2000 say is $50,000.
Have a look at the website:

[http://www.buildingdetroit.org/](http://www.buildingdetroit.org/)

The 'Rehabbed and Ready'
([http://auctions.buildingdetroit.org/RehabbedAndReady](http://auctions.buildingdetroit.org/RehabbedAndReady))
homes demonstrate the transformation from a $1000 to a $50000 property.

To my eyes this approach closely matches the 10% target described in the
article, and seems to be a smart way to build a tax base.

~~~
yabatopia
These conditions are crazy. Requiring in investment of ten thousands of
dollars in a home in a high risk neighbourhood within six months after
purchase is borderline preying on the gullible.

A street in Detroit can go in a downward spiral within months. All it takes is
one bad apple (home) that gets boarded up or goes down in flames near your
investment and your purchase becomes a super high risk gamble, most probably
with a very unhappy ending.

Add the high property taxes, completely out of touch with the current values
of the properties in such neighbourhoods. And don't forget the back taxes from
previous owners that you're often required to pay.

You lure people with a limited income, attracted by the low auction prices,
force them to invest a significant sum to renovate a property to code within a
limited time frame, saddle them with a mortgage and then you slap them with
high taxes.

I'm not saying investing in such properties in Detroit is a bad move, you can
make a lot of money with it, but it's not for the inexperienced or someone
without a buffer to overcome setbacks!

~~~
GreenPlastic
I knew a real estate investor who was really successful who's motto was the
best investments are those in the worst areas that most people wouldn't touch.
Large trailer parks with high vacancy rates, run down neighborhoods, etc.

We don't live in Detroit but bought 3 properties for 40k each with about
18-20% yields. The renters aren't the best (they're paying 800 in rent because
they can't afford an 8k downpayment), but they're great investments.

~~~
yabatopia
Agree. However, I wasn't talking about 40k homes here, but about $1,000 homes
in risky neighborhoods, with the obligation to renovate to code, potentially
costing ten thousands of dollars in the process.

There's a reason why the value op the property, including home and land,
cratered to $500 or a few thousand dollars. It's the state of the neighborhood
that dictates the value and it can change rapidly, faster than in regular
neighborhoods.

It's not an investment I would recommended for inexperienced investors or
people with limited savings who put all eggs in one basket. And sadly, the low
prices attract quite a few of them.

~~~
paulsutter
You're explaining exactly why the properties may be a good value. Most people
reflexively assume they're a dangerous investment and never take a close look.

When I suggest real estate investing of any kind, I usually hear a wall of
objections about risks, and a lack of interest in how to counter those risks.
It's part of the reason I like it.

(Not that I'd invest in Detroit, I don't have a rationale for it. Some people
do)

~~~
yabatopia
There's a big difference between a poor neighborhood and a bad neighborhood
(bad for whatever reason: crime, drugs, blight, population decline).

Here's a good example how a lot of the $1,000 homes, and the surrounding
neighborhoods, really look like:
[https://youtu.be/IuJFLJ0JApA](https://youtu.be/IuJFLJ0JApA) . In the
description there's a link to a follow-up video 3 years later. It's not a
pretty picture. But then again, who buys properties on auctions without
inspecting them first?

~~~
slfnflctd
I tried to skip through the videos to get to the point because they're long
and the guy rambles a lot, but somehow I missed it.

It seemed there were some distressed properties and that some work was done on
them... which tells me nothing. Were the houses rehabilitated, is work still
in progress or were they ultimately re-abandoned? Can any conclusions
whatsoever be drawn from this?

------
epistasis
That's quite an interesting take! The differences in older and newer city
planning regarding street widths, densities, mixing of zoning, etc. are quite
drastic.

However, I believe it will be at least 20 years before my local municipality
will be able to learn from any of these lessons. The planning meetings for any
type of development are dominated by those with the time to go to them mid-
day: retired people that set up the initial zoning and are dead set against
any potential change. The same person who is super concerned about negative
impact on property values will in the next sentence rail against those wanting
to do development for their "greed."

I really gotta move out of California...

~~~
Anechoic
_I really gotta move out of California..._

It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time
presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of
advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public
meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large
cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that
attend those meetings tend to be dominated by those affluent enough to take
the time to go.

The starkest example of that are public meetings in poor cities where projects
will affect large minority areas and yet 95% of the attendees will be affluent
folks from the outer suburbs. It's not that the affected folks don't care, it
just that when the meeting is held at 2pm or 5pm or even 6pm on a weeknight,
they have jobs to go to and they can't make time to attend. The most diverse,
well-attended public meetings I've been to have always been held on Saturday
afternoons.

~~~
ryandrake
This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you
have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely
deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.

~~~
sundvor
That's pretty sickening, but can't help but consider true. Upvoted and added
this comment for emphasis.

In Australia voting day is always a Saturday, from 8 am to 6 pm, also with
ample opportunity to mail in beforehand. Oh and you'll be fined if you don't
cast your vote... It may not be perfect, but appears way more democratic to me
than the US elections.

[http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/polling.htm](http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/polling.htm)

(When I left Norway nearly two decades ago, so glad I didn't go to the US
now.)

~~~
ghaff
I often vote absentee (or "early" this year) in the US because of travel or
just because. But if I _had_ to vote in person I'd guess I'd miss at least as
many votes on weekends because I'm off somewhere as weekdays.

I'm also unconvinced that forced voting is a positive. If you don't care
enough to develop an opinion and vote, why should your random "because you
have to" vote count?

~~~
ghostDancer
In some countries you can vote blank(you don't find a good enough
representation among the parties) or a non valid vote (as a protest). The
problem is how they count those votes, in Spain is like if have not voted.

------
RangerScience
> These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak
> wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public
> investment is made.

 _This_. I've struggled to phrase why most developments seem so terrible, or
sterile, or what-have-you, while the areas that developed over time seem so
much more... Alive? Valued? This is an amazing way to phrase that difference -
it's _possible_ to invest yourself in places that are not at peak value.

~~~
PaulHoule
Go to the poor neighborhoods and look closely and you often find that they
built a bunch of row houses that are maybe two to four stories high. Some of
them got knocked down, some of them are still there but they've been altered
or decorated. When the trees get taller the monotonous aspects are less
visible. Some of them are now vacant lots or rebuilt houses, stores, parking
lots, etc.

When they went to see Levittown for it's 50th aniversary they were unable to
find a single house that had not changed in a major way.

Even the worst architecture and urban planning will be reprocessed over time.

~~~
jonlucc
You might be interested in the episode of 99 Percent Invisible [1] that talks
about how an architect was tasked with designing a bunch of housing for very
poor residents in Chile after a disaster.

He chose to build half-houses that are literally unfinished roofs on one side.
Over time, people were encouraged to build the other half as they saw fit.

[1] Episode 231 - Half a House - [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-
a-house/](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/)

~~~
WildUtah
There's a famous National Geographic photo of a cookie-cutter suburb an hour
east of Mexico City. [0] Identical brand new tiny homes in cheerful monotone
colors extend into the distance.

If you visit that neighborhood today, you can see the results of laws very
different from those in American suburbs. Most of the houses have been
expanded. Each one has grown in a different way. They've been repainted
different colors, there are Virgin of Guadalupe icons and paintings and Aztec
designs and decorations and every other kind of individualistic expression all
over. Small shops have opened to provide typical neighborhood corner store
services and light industry like auto repair and electronics servicing is
going on during the day. Lots of the car parking has been enclosed and some
has been eliminated entirely in favor of more living space. [1]

All of those changes would be illegal in the vast majority of American
suburbs. When older American cities were built, the laws were more like
Mexican laws and neighborhoods could grow up with residents and families and
provide local services and develop character.

Plus, the Mexican neighborhood and older American neighborhoods are
significantly denser than new American suburbs, without being remotely like
really dense development. That makes things much more accessible by walking
and creates more cooperation.

That's the difference a reasonably open and humble set of laws makes.

[0] [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-
the-d...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-
day/2013/5/housing-development-mexico/)

[1] Try a satellite or street view somewhere around 19º18'30'' N and
98º51'30'' W

~~~
galdosdi
Yes, this!!

If you want to visit "good suburbs" (single family homes and duplexes mostly,
but with variety, character, mixed use, and you can get around by transit,
walking, or car -- and a reasonable tradeoff of affordable housing but
reasonable commute time) like this in the USA, the middle areas (not center,
not outskirts) of northeastern cities developed before or around the time of
the rise of the auto have some. Queens, Bronx, outer (ie, not the currently
trendy part along the East river) Brooklyn for example.

So often we frame it as a choice, quiet but car-enslaved suburban living
versus hectic but convenient urban living.

Wrong! You can have it all. You just need your government to not be stupid.

------
Kluny
This blog, StrongTowns.org, consistently has some of the highest-quality,
focused content that I've seen in a long time. I'd encourage donating if you
also got something out of it.

~~~
aaronm14
Yea this site is fantastic. I just discovered the site because of two threads
that made it to the front of HN today. I've already spent a couple hours
reading all the other articles, I think I'll likely become a member

~~~
ajmurmann
There is also a great interview about it on the amazing econtalk.

------
nine_k
In short: the poor neighborhoods have the most low-hanging fruits, and can be
improved in obvious ways using small, low-risk investments.

Affluent neighborhoods are built in a way that cannot be easily improved upon.

~~~
gozur88
If you live in an affluent neighborhood you've probably already improved the
property as much as you reasonably can because you get a good return on the
cosmetic stuff - what's really costing you money is the location of the
property.

------
gogopuppygogo
There are investment groups like
[http://www.ohiocashflow.com](http://www.ohiocashflow.com) that go into the
rust belt and buy up homes in the poor neighborhoods, return them to being
inhatible and then sell them off as turn key rental properties.

With the way automation is taking jobs I wouldn't be surprised if these kinds
of low income housing investments turn out to be solid cashflow producing
investments.

~~~
shostack
If the people renting these are increasingly likely to be automated out of a
job why do you think this would be anything but a very risky investment?

~~~
godzillabrennus
Welfare systems will keep them in a home.

~~~
gohrt
why didn't welfare systems keep them in a home last time?

~~~
jonwachob91
They never said anything about their target audience being homeless. The
target audience is low income.

------
twoquestions
It turns my stomach to say this, but I think the reason why these ideas aren't
implemented is the people in the "poor" neighborhoods are of a lower social
class than the people running the cities in question.

I very much doubt a legislator or city council could muster money from Us to
spend on places where Those People live, even if it makes financial sense. I
would love to be wrong about this.

~~~
GFischer
To be fair, in my city (Montevideo, Uruguay), government has made a strong
effort to spend on poorer areas.

The problem is, most of the money (a staggering 80%) goes to pay salaries !!!
They aren't helping the poor or the rich, they're helping themselves.

~~~
mtanski
That's not just a problem in your location but a lot of other places. Many
municipalities and some states in the US made unsustainable promises to their
employees in forms future salaries (pensions). Except instead of doing 80%
today, they are doing 80% in the future.

------
baron816
Many economists argue for taxing every equal sized plot of land the same (vs.
taxing based on assessed value). There are a lot of benefits to doing it this
way, but the main one is that it encourages efficient land use. If a 40 story
high rise with 200 apartments in it is taxed the same way as a lot with 6
ranch style homes, then you're going to incentivize building up.

~~~
mjmahone
If you're thinking of land value taxes (Henry George style taxes, considered
highly efficient), it's not taxing every property that's the same size the
same exact amount. It's taxing each property based on its raw (unimproved)
value. So an acre near a subway would be worth more than an acre that's
further away, and would be taxed more, even if it was just an empty plot while
the further away lot had a high rise on it.

------
adolph
I don't understand the author's argument. Is it "spiff up the 'poor'
neighborhoods so the inhabitants will pay more property taxes?"

When I look at the map, it looks like most of the city is lightly in the red
and it has several extremely red areas which may drive most of the losses.
What is driving those? Are they stadiums or large government facilities that
aren't taxable? Or maybe middle-aged neighborhoods with severe drainage
problems that can't withstand a hurricane?

What’s driving the difference between the lightly red and the green areas?
Some of the comments here propose that people in those neighborhoods aren't
asking for improvements or the infrastructure is naturally cheaper. It could
also be a city-favorable tax to liability balance since the larger portion of
the green area is rented and thus doesn't get a homestead property tax
exemption or growth cap.

"Putting in street trees, painting crosswalks, patching sidewalks, and making
changes to zoning regulations" might put a city in better financial position
if they think gentrification makes sense and is possible. But that by
definition is not a social justice argument.

~~~
exclusiv
That's what it sounded like to me. He said they'd take a block of 50k houses
to turn into 55k houses which will pay more taxes (and since the area is poor
it requires less funds to service). So it's a better investment than affluent
areas from a direct profitability metric.

Of course, the bump in those home's property tax revenue wouldn't drive other
revenue like investing in making a downtown more upscale would: more local
homeowner values (and property tax revenue), corporate business tax revenue,
sales tax and tourist revenue. He brushes off simplistic arguments but his
argument is simplistic as well - and he advocates for squeezing the poor! The
poor would rather have lower taxes than a bump in home value.

> We see this trend everywhere we've done a model. On a per acre basis,
> neighborhoods that tend to be poor also tend to pay more taxes and cost less
> to provide services to than their more affluent counterparts. How is this
> possible? Some of my planner colleagues will say it is density..

Then he goes into how it's cheaper to service but really offers no argument
about the density especially as it relates to the 2 photos he proposes as
evidence (the 1.1M poor block vs the 618k affluent block - it's actually 803k
on his other article). Clearly there are more structures and less parking on
the poor block. The poor picture has this: "two liquor stores, a pawn shop, a
barber shop, a bankruptcy attorney, a campaign headquarters, a retail
establishment, a cafe and a vacant building." How can he shrug off density?

> Poor neighborhoods subsidize the affluent; it is a ubiquitous condition of
> the American development pattern.

Bold claim with no evidence. Perhaps he meant to say "poor neighborhoods are
more profitable on a property tax basis than affluent neighborhoods"

~~~
azernik
For background, I read his article [1] on why density, so he argues, doesn't
matter. Instead, he proposes a different metric - the ratio of private (i.e.
productive, main property) investment to public (infrastructure/supporting)
investment, which should be high; 20:1 or ideally much higher.

However, most arguments for dense development are EXTREMELY relevant to this
ratio - the idea being that dense development is cheaper, per unit
population/economic activity, to build infrastructure for. Maybe it shouldn't
be viewed as an end in itself, but it _is_ a good heuristic.

[1] [http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/16/best-
of-2015-d...](http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/16/best-
of-2015-density-question)

~~~
exclusiv
Perhaps his ratio makes sense but density is why that poor block example has a
higher appraised land value than the single taco joint in the affluent area
which is mostly parking.

So his argument doesn't stand up in that case. Sure the poor block has a
higher assessment and more property taxes unless those businesses got tax
rebates for operating there. But that's just one revenue metric for the block.

------
cjslep
Alternate cynical title from the red/green map: Towns pump money from poor
neighborhoods and dump it into affluent ones.

~~~
warfangle
Socialized risk, privatized profit, 'trickle down' economics

------
siscia
I would love to these analysis made for Europe.

Here in Italy the oldest part of the city are usually the most popular and
most expensive.

We don't have THAT much land over here and regulation are pretty strict on
what you can build and where...

~~~
nine_k
I bet most cities in Italy were not built with cars in mind, especially the
city centers / downtowns.

If you look at US cities that share this trait, e.g. NYC or Boston or Chicago
or even SF, the oldest parts of the city are very expensive and prestigious,
and have been for several centuries.

Also, "white flight" never happened in Italy, while many US cities were
affected last century.

~~~
siscia
I would say all cities (also in the north) but just few exceptions were build
before cars where even an idea...

~~~
nine_k
An old city could be bombed into a complete ruin and rebuilt from scratch;
this happened in Russia, Poland, Germany, UK during WWII. Fortunately, Italian
cities were mostly left intact.

~~~
kbart
Still they were rebuilt without cars in mind.

------
aglavine
Isn't the article describing the classic Gentrification move?

~~~
hguant
No, because the gentrification move would be to buy up those $50,000 dollar
houses, renovate them/replace with a condo block and drive out the local
residents. Gentrification comes from developers, whereas what he's describing
comes from the city itself.

Key quotes:

"It's wealth that is shared throughout the neighborhood." \-- about as anti-
gentrification as you can get.

"American cities can make low risk, high returning investments while improving
the quality of life for people, particularly those who have not benefited from
the current approach." \-- indicates to me that the investment he's speaking
of is of cities into existing areas, not developers demolishing and recreating
neighborhoods.

~~~
jandrese
Either way if you make the neighborhood a nice place to live more people will
want to move there. The more people who want to move there the higher prices
will go. The higher prices go the higher taxes and rents go. After some time
the original residents can no longer afford to live there. That's
gentrification.

The trick would be to apply the improvements to every poor neighborhood at the
same time so you don't create winners and losers and upset the balance in the
housing market, but this is basically impossible.

~~~
twblalock
> The trick would be to apply the improvements to every poor neighborhood at
> the same time so you don't create winners and losers and upset the balance
> in the housing market, but this is basically impossible.

Even if you could do that, it wouldn't work. It would simply make all of the
poor neighborhoods more attractive to gentrifiers at the same time.

I think there is a tipping point where if you help poor neighborhoods too
much, they become attractive enough as places to live that the poor residents
end up being displaced by increased housing costs. It's an unintended
consequence.

~~~
jandrese
There is only so much demand for housing, especially for higher priced
housing. You can't create additional demand simply by improving the
neighborhood, additional demand is only created when more people move into the
area.

So if you increase the quality of all of the affordable housing, then it
shouldn't make much impact on the prices of those houses. They're already
paying what they can. Now if you create new job opportunities at the same time
then the equation changes. If the high quality jobs greatly outgrow the
housing then you end up in a situation like San Fransisco or lower Manhattan
where rents skyrocket regardless of the condition of the housing.

------
iopq
The reason why poor neighborhoods are profitable is because the city doesn't
spend money on them. If the city spent money on them, they'd be less
profitable.

There's no reason to expect that the city spending more money on a
neighborhood increases any tax returns.

~~~
YokoZar
These are property tax returns. Property tax returns come from property
prices. Making a neighborhood nicer raises property values, and thus prices.

The article is making the observation that it's much easier and cheaper to
improve bad neighborhoods than rich ones. Painting crosswalks and planting
trees is cheap, but rich neighborhoods already have those things.

~~~
huherto
So it is an application of the Law of diminishing marginal returns ?

------
nostromo
This seems tautological.

Those areas are "profitable" because they are using fewer services.

If you invest more there, they would no longer be "profitable" \-- and
increased investment may not increase future "profits."

I think this essay falls down in part because it's nonsensical to use these
private industry terms when discussing municipal governance. I want my city to
concern itself with equity and quality of life - not which citizens are most
profitable.

~~~
Vraxx
This is certainly a factor with any investment, because they may only be able
to effectively utilize a certain amount of assets. With that being said, I
think that it is a reasonable expectation that investing into the area would
inflate the values of the property in that area, which directly translates
into increased tax revenue (profit). Obviously too much too quickly and you
might run into the aforementioned limit of effective asset utilization, but
that isn't what the author was suggesting.

~~~
nostromo
Increasing the value of land without increasing the incomes of the people who
live on that land leads to displacement and gentrification.

The goal of a city shouldn't be to increase land values -- it should be to
increase the affluence of residents.

~~~
Vraxx
I don't think that displacement alone is a reason to avoid an action
necessarily. I say this because while it may not be increasing their income,
even if they were displaced they would get more money for being displaced
(when selling the property). I'd also argue that the status quo of letting the
area languish is hardly a better alternative for your stated goal (increasing
the affluence of it's residents). It seems to be a dichotomy, but I don't
think it's a decision between displace everyone or do nothing and displace
nobody. Given the tools that a municipality actually has to increase the
affluence of it's residents, I think making their living area nicer probably
has the best shot at doing so because it might attract better opportunities
than might normally frequent the area.

Last thought, what do you think these municipalities should do instead of
minor QoL improvements that might modestly increase average property value (as
stated in the article)?

~~~
sqeaky
> they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property)

and for displaced renters?

------
tomohawk
It seems like what they're saying is that taxation per square inch is higher
in poorer areas, and that areas that are doing better have less taxation.
Could it be that the areas that are doing better are doing better for that
reason?

A land tax instead of a property tax seems to be the way to go. This would
avoid punishing people from improving their property.

------
jgalt212
Tell that to Robert Moses. His slum clearance work turned poor neighborhoods
into destitute neighborhoods.

------
azernik
A very insightful (but needless rude) comment from a user called Memetic:

"No sh*t, it's called gentrification and has been around forever. Thanks for
reinventing the wheel."

------
MichaelBurge
[This comment has been removed since it was off-topic]

~~~
lkb2k
He's not referring investment in the sense of individuals coming in, buying
houses, improving them and flipping them.

> We're talking about things like putting in street trees, painting
> crosswalks, patching sidewalks, and making changes to zoning regulations to
> provide more flexibility for neighborhood businesses, accessory apartments
> and parking.

His argument is that small civic investments in infrastructure in poor
neighborhoods have a good chance of increasing the average property value of
the whole neighborhood and thus increasing the tax base. Not all 'investments'
will work, but they are relatively inexpensive so you can experiment and
replicate the ones that do work across the whole city.

~~~
MichaelBurge
You're right, I reread it and it's talking about the city. I guess had never
seen it argued before that a city should optimize property values(and hence
taxes).

That raises the question: Property taxes increasing won't by themselves
increase people's incomes. Since they aren't trying to affect jobs(per-capita
income) and explicitly mentioned density is not the issue(population), then
the only thing left is to change the demographics(transfer wealth in).

Investment could be meant more broadly(like education or healthcare), but he
explicitly disclaims that at the start("What I'm going to present here is pure
dollars and cents. "). Somehow it doesn't seem right to advocate for city
policy that swaps out the existing citizens for more profitable ones, though I
suppose the existing citizens do come out ahead.

------
twblalock
Be aware of unintended consequences of improving neighborhoods.

If poor people can't afford to live in nice neighborhoods, and we transform
their surroundings into nice neighborhoods, they won't be able to afford to
stay. Richer people will move in and drive up the prices.

These effects are likely to be amplified in towns with high demand for housing
and low supply.

~~~
OrwellianChild
I think a lot can be learned from inverting the spin of the advice you are
proposing... What you are saying is: "Leave neighborhoods unpleasant so only
poor people want to live in them."

Looking at it this way gets at the heart of the problem with this way of
thinking. Can I suggest a counter point?

Solve the systemic issues that prevent low-income people from seeking good
housing, rather than advocating to keep them in their place.

~~~
twblalock
Your interpretation changes the meaning of what I said, and it is uncharitable
at best. I never advocated keeping the poor "in their place." I just pointed
out that unintended consequences can occur in these kinds of situations.

~~~
Chris2048
How is the above not the implication though? At least if a neighborhood
changes, there is a chance a % of poor locals are able to profit from it and
stay.

~~~
twblalock
Saying that one should be careful when trying to help people is _not_ the same
as saying that one should not help those people at all.

------
agumonkey
Poor neighborhoods are latent negative pressure. In time things will flow back
to them because they have no better choice.

------
Nano2rad
For development of an area, civic infrastructure has to be developed. When
there are people living in an area govt will start providing necessary
infrastructure and also presence of people reduce crime. Poorer people migrate
to the empty areas first.

------
anon363764
OMG, apples and oranges terrible analogy. The best monetary returns investment
in the real world is typically accomplished rehabbing the worst home in the
best area because of the undeniable market power of comparables... the nice,
expensive homes will boost the value of a now more attractive-seeming home by
carefully-chosen upgrades which deliver maximum ROI, i.e., looks (good front
landscaping), wow features and/or adding area/rooms; not sinking cash into
pricy, low ROI money pit/white elephant work or hoping a nicer-seeming home in
a bad area will magically not be depressed by terrible comparables.

------
malloryerik
I wonder what Strong Towns would think of a land value tax.

------
Rugsandbeyond
Investment can be made by anyone but it must be in a proper way. Few of my
friends have also done the same and today they are taking the benefit of those
past investment.

------
DoodleBuggy
Just wait for gentrification to hit the area. Then the $50k houses will be
worth $650k+.

