|
|
|
|
|
by okasaki
1467 days ago
|
|
If the value of the land goes up with increased economic activity, but you're not economically active enough to continue living in the area, how is it unreasonable to be expected to sell? The other side of every "family was forced to sell" is "another family was very happy to move in". |
|
There is a point where I think it's okay to factor an unexpected large housing market increase into the equation. To raise a community's property tax unrealistically because a mass influx of buyers are willing to overextend their credit doesn't make much sense to me.
Also, I think this applies even more to our current situation and the fact that a lot of these communities had nothing to do with the politically charged economic decisions our politicians made with close to zero debate, and ultimately, the economic fallout it has created.
In my home state in the Midwest I have always thought a better way to go about it in the future would be to factor median salary and wages into the mix. That, along with an unrealistic housing market increase. I'm not sure what unrealistic would be defined as, but median value increasing 2x in five years is definitely unrealistic. At the very least things like this should be debated.