|
|
|
|
|
by ayende
1350 days ago
|
|
In Israel, for example, a lot of land is not "sold", but leased by the state to people. In practical terms, there is no real difference. Technically speaking, the lease terms are 49 / 98 years. The problem is that when you reach the end of the lease, there is no real possibility of _not_ extending the lease.
And the lease is for the _land_, not anything on top of that. So it "sounds" nice, but in practical terms, it just adds another body that you have to go through. From economic perspective, there is very little difference between the two. A bank will give you a mortgage to buy a house whose "land lease" expire next year, for example. Because there is no possibility of that not being extended. There is _slight_ advantage to buying houses not leased, but mostly because that means somewhat less paperwork to go through. |
|