Except that it will cost a lot more to build, insure and maintain.
That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if people with too much money start buying just to have bragging rights on a magnificent view of the sea level rise.
> Except that it will cost a lot more to build, insure and maintain.
Those are not counterarguments. Increasing running costs directly decrease property values. The property value vs. replacement property value will adjust.
Consider normal case whre property price is $1M, upkeep an maintenance etc. cost is $10k per year and investor gets $70k in rent.
Now change it to property price being $100k, yearly cost $30k per year and investor gets $60k in rent.
Those are not counterarguments. Increasing running costs directly decrease property values. The property value vs. replacement property value will adjust.
Consider normal case whre property price is $1M, upkeep an maintenance etc. cost is $10k per year and investor gets $70k in rent.
Now change it to property price being $100k, yearly cost $30k per year and investor gets $60k in rent.
Witch one has better ROI?