[rifung]

> This ideal of a higher density residential society with lots of landlords that is popular on HN right now is a terrible future. Landlords want one thing — maximum return on assets. That means high cost, minimum possible opex.

How is that different from what homeowners want? Don't homeowners already block legislation that would allow higher density units to be built because it would decrease the value of their homes?

At least in the Seattle area where there are many high rise apartments and a lot of competition, companies seem to have to invest in making their apartments nice.

[Spooky23]

I fight against medium density development in my city because they are assessed by a different standard and my property tax burden is like 10x the developer. The development drives costs for school services and I get to pay.

[rifung]

> my property tax burden is like 10x the developer

Care to elaborate? Why would that be the case?

[Spooky23]

Valuation is based on net income, which is easy to game.

Also, most new development in my area is getting partial 10 year tax abatements. So the owners get to undercut the rents, which drives more of the traditional 2-4 family houses to lower rents and less maintenance, and eventually to section-8, which is the price floor.

So I get to pay more property tax, I get to pay for tax abatements via sales taxes, and we get to enjoy more traffic and a decline in the maintenance of legacy housing stock.

[ensignavenger]

I'm not sure what the situation is for the OP, but in some areas, local governments give tax subsidies to developers. I like development, but I don't like tax subsidies for developers.