As a current landlord about to extend a lease at exactly the same terms for 3rd year in a row (and I fix everything within 24 hours) - I agree with this too.
It’s ridiculous that my largest store of value is a speculation bubble and a piece of paper with my name on it
Will be in your situation in due time.
Inheritance will give my siblings and I property.
My siblings and I have already talked about it. We’re looking to see if we can transfer it to Community Land Trusts or sell.
Here’s a link to the Canada wide association: https://www.communityland.ca/
Here’s the one specific to Ottawa: https://www.oclt.ca/
There are others in other cities.
Some (like Ottawa) don’t take individual units yet but we’ll prob sell and then invest in them or if they choose to buy individual units, sell to them.
If you can find one. Sell to a community land trust or housing co-op. You can get your capital back and the people living there can manage and own their own homes.
You can then reinvest the capital into other projects: https://tapestrycapital.ca/
Or in renewable energy: https://www.orec.ca/
Or credit union class B shares.
They try to aim for 4-5% ROI so above inflation. Unfortunately, most people want the ubsustainable returns in real estate.
Ooo! Those are good alternatives. I’ll give em a read through. It might solve something on my end.
Say I want to move cities for a new job. There are at least two uncertainties I need to resolve -
- will this job work out for the long term?
- will I like this city at all (or know where to buy)?
This prevents me from wanting to buy immediately.
What prevents me from selling immediately is losing a stable footing I can plan around if the new city doesn’t work out. More broadly for everyone in this situation though is the cash sits.
I will need to buy immediately or park it in some investment that keeps pace/liquid enough to convert back to a house, which requires additional knowledge/research.
So to be risk averse, sitting on the house is generally a safe default…
But thank you for starting me on considering this as an options and what parameters need to be met to make sense.
Glad to help.
For now. I’d at least put it in your will and talk to the beneficiaries of your estate about it.
I have family members who are more into the whole Real Estate “game” and would rather the property. Putting it in your will prevent any shenanigans.
The whole “society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never know” and all that.
You’re right about moving cities part of it. Ideally if there are enough community land trusts and housing cooperatives you won’t face such issues as the distinction between “renting” and “owning” will disappear. And your investments will be divorced from land and onto actual projects.
I couldn’t disagree more. All the hatred should be directed at individuals/companies that own a bunch of properties. They are specifically in the business of fucking people.
The thing I hate most is that all of these clowns will tell you you MUST raise rent every year. They also would likely try and murder you if you even got close to forcing them to pay their employees more every year, or even just other people’s employees. Keep in mind, if you own the property, you are making money with equity no matter if you have tenants or not. So all the rent is gravy but they want to squeeze people to death because they legally have to maintain their own rentals, which the cost of upkeep is REALLY far below the rent paid. Again, $0 in rent is STILL making money off the property.
100% as long as you’re talking about paid off property. That doesn’t really exist since every company that makes this their business model is over-leveraged as fuck and landlords with a single property are very likely to still have a mortgage.
One day you’ll learn the difference between hard and liquid assets.
As opposed to the people who merely own one family of serfs?
Wtf are you talking about?
Edit: messed up the formatting.
Does it matter to a family that can only rent if they rent from a corporation vs individual?
Spreading out renters is not a solution.
The following math works if the all landlords own the maximum allowed.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1000, only 1‰ of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 100, only 1% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 10, only 10% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1, only 50% of the population can be landlords.
To go back to the beginning, if there is no maximum, only 1 person (0.0001%) of the population can be a landlord and everyone else is a renter (the whole “you will own nothing and be happy” line).
What percent of the population do you want to permit to be landlords? Mind you, not property managers, specifically landlords.
Remember 100% of the population can be a property manager because everyone can manage their own property. But the largest percentage of the population that can be landlords is 50%.
I see that you differentiate from people who happen to have extra space and want to rent it out, that I can understand. But also understand that someone can buy 1 home specifically to fuck over other people.
The problem is that some people want to own other people’s homes. Some people want to own 1000 people’s homes and others just 1 is enough. In either case it is not the number that is the problem but the desire to own other people’s homes for the sole purpose of rent seeking that is the problem.
That is what is meant by the comment about “merely own one family of serfs” is about.
Why make an allowance for property managers? Seems like they see a group of people being exploited, and want to find a way to take a cut of that exploitation.
Good question. I understand where you’re coming from with that statement. I have seen ads such as: (https://bsky.app/profile/derek.bike/post/3kkwecolbwk23) and very much share your sentiment.
Short answer: The Division of Labour
Long answer (sorry in advance):
I work in tech, I can choose to work in tech all day because I am the most productive in it. Then I can hire a chef that cooks for me, a maid to clean, a gardener to garden, etc and a manager that manages the home. Each cook, maid, gardener, and manager can in turn have multiple clients. And if they work all day in the thing they are most proficient at, they can in turn hire other people to do the stuff they do not do. This style of living is usual in India, Singapore and outside “The West” more generally. You can see here that the property manager is a part of the division of labour and so “competes in the marketplace” with other property managers for that position, the same with me and all the other workers do for our respective roles in the example.
This is peak liberalism/free market dynamics. I don’t think this is sustainable without coersion. But this is what is meant by “social production” by both Smith and Marx.
Furthermore, you can choose not to hire anybody and be your own property manager which is, in my opinion, more sustainable and totally allowed.
The problem with landlords is that if all the land is owned by someone else, you do not have an option of managing your own land without “hiring” anybody else to do it so you are trapped. This also allows landlords to squeeze money out of people. And the biggest issue it allows other people to rule out your own existance. This sentiment is perfectly encapsulated by the following quote:
Land, n. A part of the earth’s surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
- The Devil’s Dictionary https://archive.org/details/devilsdictionar00bier/page/68/
I hope that shows my position on the matter. I would like your take on it. As can be seen in this thread, there are those who do understand the position and instead of engaging with it, just deride it.
Thanks for the discussion. My understanding of the quote that you’ve included is that it is an argument against private ownership of land in general. I think that this notion, also carried to its logical conclusion, can only be sustained with an absolute degree of central planning. That is to say that a central organizing force would be needed to ensure that some percent of land is set aside for growing food for A through G and beyond, as well as land set aside for any other services that used by all parties (hospitals, schools, etc.)
I’m not necessarily trying to argue against this, and think that there may be a need to address scenarios like this relatively soon. Blue Origin has a vision statement that says something like, “hundreds of people living and working in space”. I’ve wondered what property ownership might look like for people living and working in space where “property” is a significantly more constrained resource.
Sorry that I’ve kind of glossed over the role of the property manager a bit to address the latter part of your post. I can understand the difference to an extent, though my experience with property managers is that their objectives are to extract the highest possible amount from the renter (since their income is a percentage of the rent paid), which I see as a little different from a cook, maid, or gardener. Competition in the market place for a property manager also seems that it may favor the property manager that can maximize the income to the landlord.
None of the shit your said counters my original point. Individual renters with a single rental property inherently care about it and it will almost never be their only income. They’re not doing it to squeeze the most money out of it. Most just need rent to cover their own expenses.
Previous comment is still utter fucking nonsense.
You were given a great answer but to put it even more bluntly, just because someone owns one slave it doesn’t make it any better than someone owning a whole plantation of slaves. It’s horrible either way, I don’t care if you have more time to take better care of your slave because it’s your only one; you still own a fucking slave
It wasn’t a great answer. It was incredibly banal and doesn’t take reality into consideration. This idiotic logic can be applied to anything. It doesn’t make any more sense just because you repeat it.
We live in a capitalist country. We’re all slaves by this primitive thinking. You can shift the blame endlessly.
A properly maintained rental that is fairly priced is not unfair to anyone.
Chris? Lol
Sell your house and stop participating if you’re concerned about it
This advice is indistinguishable from unsolicited mail wanting to buy houses in cash at above market rate… Presumably so Blackrock can jack it up, restrict supply, and charge way more while doing way less.
Which is exactly what OP post is trying to fix.
I’m not a hero, but I’m doing what’s fair given the system we have. Even I’m saying this is fucked, but it’s the best I can do to affect things for the better.
Ban corporations from owning residential properties. Houses shouldn’t be held like stocks or cryptocurrency. Only allow individuals to own a maximum of two residential properties, which must be occupied by the owner at least 5 months out of the year or be surrendered to the government, to be sold to an individual who will live in the house.
In the Netherlands we have wooncorporatie, which are non-profit home rental companies. I think it’s a reasonable model, although the center right government tried to get rid of them for years. (Now we have a coalition of far-right parties in power, and they don’t even have anything like a consistent ideology much less policy so who can know what the future brings?)
I am a former landlord and I approve of this message. We are back in the house we rented out for 22 years after we moved across the country to a better job, in a place we didn’t care for. We kept our house here so we could come back. We rented it out for 22 years at 30% or even less than market rate ($1600 a month in 2022 for a 3 bed two bath house near LA and a 10 m walk from the train) and we endured crooked and incompetent property managers, failed appliances and tenants who didn’t pay rent. One became a bank robber after we evicted them for not paying rent. They could have started robbing banks earlier I guess so they could at least pay the rent. Anyway, it worked out very well for us. We are back in our house where we like to live. People and companies who buy a bunch of houses and don’t rent them out to give people places to live shouldn’t be able to profit from doing that.
Anyway, it worked out very well for us
This proves the point. This is the kind of story that should end “so, in the end we ended up losing money on the place”. But, if an absent landlord can hire crooked and incompetent property managers, deal with deadbeat tenants, and still have it work out very well for them then it’s an investment where you really can’t lose.
I’m sure you’re lovely people. I don’t mean to criticize you in particular, just the game.
Had we sold our house when we took that job back east we would never have been able to come back here on what we could have saved from what a working person makes. So like I said, it worked out for us.
I don’t know why you’re getting disliked, it’s straight facts. And you weren’t even mean!
I only see one downvote, but thanks for saying that.
There are literally amendments to the Constitution preventing this from happening have you all lost your mind!
Why do we have to pretend the constitution matters when our enemies don’t?
Ummm… Because our enemies don’t… 🤷
They’re just kids living out a simplistic power fantasy. “If I were king of the world, I’d solve this huge, intractable problem with a simple order”. Like Mao ordering all the sparrows to be killed. Hopefully, once they experience the world a little, they realize that big problems are big because they’re difficult and complicated to solve.
Housing is more complex and the proposed solution may not work, but there are some problems that could be solved by someone with absolute power pretty easily. For example, if we shipped health insurance CEOs off to El Salvadorian labor camps instead of innocent immigrants, people would stop having their claims denied and the concept of a deductible would go the way of the dodo.
facepalm
Hey, I just rented my property for exactly what the council rates and body corporate expenses are. A $160 pw home. Not even a mark up to cover repairs etc, because capital gain will more than cover that. I did it because I hate what is happening in housing currently, especially for young buyers. Now my new tenant wants to delay moving in for 3 weeks, and not pay any rent during that time. /sigh…what scum I am…
Do you think you provide housing? Here’s a list of common signs:
If someone stole all your tools, you’d kill them, and you don’t think that’s weird.
Unhealthy relationship with caffeine (bonus points for other substances too)
At least one fucked-up bone or joint
There’s some Liquid Nails or silicone caulk stuck in your favorite work shirt
Your hearing isn’t as good as it used to be
Regular porta-shitter use
If two or more of these fit your lifestyle, you may be a provider of housing.
Meh, they would redefine vacant and claim “their” property isn’t affected by the law.
Right and that is also a solvable problem.
Based on what evidence do you think that laws apply to people with money. Laws were made to protect commerce, and by extension, those with the money. There will always be a loophole for them.
Canada instantly bursting in flames
why do you hate me so?
try 100%. housing should be covered by taxes.
People have vacant home??? Where?
There are 15 million vacant in the US: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
…since gross vacancy rate is a measure of all vacant properties — including vacation properties — states with several popular tourist destinations, like Florida and Hawaii, will always register slightly higher rates. The Census Bureau notes that the largest category of vacant housing in the United States is classified as “seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.” In over one-fifth of US counties, these seasonal units made up at least 50% of the vacant housing stock.
Is the movement now to ban vacation homes?
Also note that California, with the worst housing crisis, has one of the lowest vacancy rates, while Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii have among the highest rates. There’s not a housing shortage on average, there’s a housing shortage in the places people want to live - which largely means the places where they can get jobs.
I don’t think vacation homes should be banned, just heavily taxed. I realize that not everybody who owns a vacation home is a multi-millionaire. Some people have a crappy place that’s been in the family for generations. But, they’re still doing much, much better than the people who own 0 homes.
It should also be noted one of the reasons California has such a bad housing problem is other states shipping their own homeless there.
Wtf. That is crazy. what are they waiting for?
It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal. But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state.
(…)
Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before. In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for.
Landlords are scum, but tenants are fucking disgusting.
You don’t hear much about good tenants or landlords for two reasons.
One is of course the simple matter that people who are content tend to be quieter. Same reason that it’s easier to find complaints about most products.
The other is reduced exposure. Good tenants will generally stay in one place longer and good landlords will retain tenants for longer periods as well. So you end up with just fewer people to even potentially say anything about them, good or ill.
I think because of ex post facto, it would take 2 years at least for the housing problem to be solved in this scenario, and I don’t know if handing private assets over to any particular federal government (ahem, US government) would result in the benefit to unhoused people that this comment suggests.
Removed by mod
The federal government, as the post suggests? The federal government in the US is doing plenty of law breaking right now, but not in the interest of the unhoused. If this was in their interest though (which given the private holdings of executive, i would doubt), then yes, they could probably accomplish this in one month.
Removed by mod
First sellers get rewarded tho. Imagine massive housing speculation tank, but if you sell quick, maybe you beat it. So it doesn’t take two years.
And Airbnb. Fuck that company and the people that buy houses and use them for this. My parents live in the mountains in a popular spot for vacations and camping. Nowadays they are the only house on their entire street that isn’t an Airbnb.
Unused housing should be taxed mercilessly.
And single-family homes should have a 100% annual tax on them, unless they are owned by an individual human/family (none of this LLC bullshit) who own only 1 house. Make a 6-month exception for inherited houses just so they can be sold, but otherwise just tax the shit out of them.
Make hoarding housing a liability.
Disagree, my grandfather’s home has set vacant for nearly 4 years now after his passing. The estate cannot be wrapped up due to my estranged uncle not believing the property is worthless.
The county keeps upping the tax assessment, and so he’s convinced it’s worth something and refuses to visit the preoperty.
On paper this is an unused house in reality the roof finally fell in about 6 months after my grandfather died. The county refuses to condem it because they want the tax revenue and my estranged uncle has held up the estate indefinitely with unrealistic expectations.
I wouldn’t say my poor as fuck family deserve a 100% annual tax on the assessed value of a near worthless asset.
I don’t know your country’s laws, but where I live, if it’s not inhabitable it is taxed way lower (and without a roof, it’s definitely not inhabitable)
That’s how it should be, but the county refuses to deem it uninhabitable. They like their tax revenue
On the contrary, a 100% yearly tax from the assesed value of the property, enacted after the property is vacant for 12 months straight, would be a strong motivator for your idiot uncle to actually visit the property, and/or the rest of you to just renounce or disclaim yourselves from ownership of what you described as a near worthless asset, and then let your idiot uncle eat 100% of the improperly assessed value’s vacancy tax.
Elsewhere in this thread you state the house is basically worthless, the land is worth 40k… but idiot uncle thinks both the land and house are worth 200k together, if I read your right.
Organize everyone other than idiot uncle into a plan to disclaim themselves from the inherited property provided the uncle ponies up 40k ( or maybe more if your idiot uncle can be duped into such ), so your parents in the trailer can just buy another plot to park their mobile home, and idiot uncle can deal with his idiocy.
I mean, that seems to be a reasonable plan with or without the proposed vacant property tax, unless there are more complications between the … non idiot uncle parties to the estate.
I don’t know for certain of course as I don’t know your locale, but… you could probably find another plot of land for about 40k?
Idiot uncle thinks its worth over 4x that, so… from his perspective, this would be a steal, to basically gain sole ownership? Let him deal with selling or demo/refurbing the house/land.
… Or have ya’ll already tried something like this, and idiot uncle refused?
What if it caught on fire? An insurance company won’t insure a house without a roof. It has zero value as it is. The land it sits on is still worth something. You should have it appraised with the collapsed roof and see if your taxes go down.
County appraisers refused to drop the value. They like their tax revenue
I imagine the options would be to pay the tax or just, I dunno, get rid of the property? You said it’s worthless.
It’s a common problem with estates though even if 4/5 people want to sell it for whatever they can get, that 1 person can keep it in limbo for a very long time. If there wasn’t a will or trust that explicitly gave someone power (and even if there is in some cases), a few years of nothing happening isn’t actually outside the norm.
Sadly, even with a will it can take years to resolve ownership of property after a death.
I mean, he plainly explained that there’s a son bogging down the estate over the house. He might have said “worthless” but I’m sure it’s more like some land value and essentially zero structure value, so they might want to get a few thousand, while he blocks that transaction holding out for ten-fold. He also asserts the county tax assessments are not consistent with market value, and I think most people who have dealt with tax assessments can relate to the disconnect between realistic market value and tax assessment, one way or the other.
Or even if they did say “fine, you know what, take the property and we’ll take the rest and you can deal with trying to extract the value you think there is”, if he doesn’t agree to that you can’t really force it short of fully disclaiming yourself out of the entire estate. So if the man had $200k in other assets, then that would be an expensive thing to forfeit for the sake of not dealing with a busted house on a bit of land.
The house is, the land does have some value even after demolition costs. Basically uncle thinks it’s worth 200,000. In reality it’s worth 40,000, maybe a bit less.
Also my parents have their trailer (does not belong to the estate) on the property. They’d love to settle it, but 1 party refuses.
This plan would actually make my parents homeless as they can’t afford to purchase anything else or rent anywhere near where they live. If they could at least divide the proceeds of the land sale they might be able to afford something. This proposed tax would break them
Based on my experience, you managed to described like every rural estate situation I’ve ever seen. Household living in a trailer towed onto their parents land. That household probably doing a lot to take care of their parents. Then the parents die and suddenly some relative no one has heard from in decades comes along to really screw things up, often from an urban area with zero concept of the market realities of a poorly mantained house on rural land.
I get the whole “hoarding sucks” but it’s really only an urban problem. Go to a rural area and you can find plenty of housing stock for cheap.
I’m not familiar with estate law, but seeing as you state your family is living on a trailer on the land, seems like either there’d be an exception (I don’t see how having essentially unused rooms on a plot of land would be a problem) or there’s some other stuff going on. Maybe if they’re not paying into the estate to rent the land that’d be an issue, but I have no idea how that works for land held in an estate. I wonder if 100% tax would incentivize him to sell? One way or the other either he sells or the land is repossessed because presumably the estate would not be able to cover the tax.
He’s a very stubborn man, and very convinced an asset he’s never seen has tremendous worth. He was apparently very disappointed that my grandfather only had $100 in his checking.
In this proposed scenario, if he does nothing he loses some money (he’s doing pretty well), but then my parents become homeless through his inaction. That seems wrong.
My family lives on the land yes, but ownership of the land belongs only to the estate. No issue with a rent payment since there was never a rent payment prior to my grandfather’s death.
If your family is living on the property I still don’t understand how this applies? The land is in use, occupied by your family, and is not vacant. If it’s zoned for single family, and a single family lives there, it’s not vacant? As far as them not paying rent now, not really sure how that happens, seeing as the land is now owned by the estate, and they are livening on it for free(?). I’m not sure how that’s not just legally considered squatting, unless there’s an agreement for use of the land provided they maintain it in the interim, but again, not an estate lawyer, nor do I know anything about property stuff. But yea, pretty sure the proposal is not relevant to your situation. It’s like considering a property with a mother in law suite vacant unless there suite is also occupied. That’s not the way it would work.
My grandfather’s home is vacant, my parents live in a separate trailer on the property. So that’s the crux isn’t it, what does vacancy mean? Because on paper this property has an occupied trailer and an unoccupied single family home. It’s one “property” but the trailer and home are taxed separately by the county and owned by different people. The county does consider them seperate dwellings, unlike a mother-in-law suite.
The estate lawyer has made it clear there are no issues from my parents living on the property still and there is no expectations of payment. It’s definently not squatting, 50% of the estate does belong to my parents after all.
Thank you for that information. Who would have guessed estate/property law is complicated. I would still suggest there are solutions to this sort of situation than can be reasonably addressed while still honoring the main purpose of the proposal, but I obviously would not be the person to speak on them.
Good luck to your family. I’m sorry you’re dealing with that.
If 50% of the estate belongs to your parents and there’s already a tax entity for the trailer, then in this example they would go to forced arbitration to draw up their portion of the land ownership and get their single family tax rebate, and the other half of the property would be the part that starts getting a vacancy tax. I’d imagine with a timeline like six months there’d be a whole lot of arbitrations in the short term to settle existing arrangements like this one. Honestly I’m curious what the land ownership looks like already for the trailer - if they can legally stay on the estate then there must be a portion of the ground that already legally belongs to them.
No part of the land is directly owned by my parents. It is owned by the estate, which is 50/50 between my parent and my uncle. Trust me if my parents owned the land under their trailer they would be a lot less stressed.
Like I said them continuing to live there is not an issue. Maybe if my uncle pressed it it would become one, but all he wants is 100k +. So he really doesn’t care beyond that.
Unfortunately his wants aren’t compatible with the reality of the situation.
No one has pursued a forced arbitration, and honestly I’m not sure why. Per the lawyer it seems like the property can exist in limbo indefinitely, or at least until one party forces something. It’s a weird stalemate of unrealistic expectations. He wants a lot of money, but also doesn’t want to pay a lawyer himself or do any work. As long as this continues my parents keep their home at least.
6 months to offload a house is not always so easy.
I did a search around the area I grew up that is very rural and I checked 4 properties for sale, two of them under $100k and they’ve been listed for over a year. In urban areas there’s demand, but rural areas commonly have houses just no one wants on land that no one cares about. No distant LLCs want them so they are available, but they aren’t convenient to anything so no one wants them either.
That means they aren’t worth 100k. Forcing people to sell them for their actual value will lower real estate prices nationwide.
There are many cases where you just can’t reduce prices enough to make them sell
- my higher priced town paid Pennies on the dollar for a complex that used to be a mental hospital and housing for various challenged. No developer was willing to pay anything because of lead and asbestos remediation costs. My town was hoping to get EPA funds and didn’t so is saddled with unusable property that it also can’t afford to clean up
- the town I grew up in has been declining for decades. Many houses are well below the cost of cars but still no one willing or able to buy. Last time I checked there seemed to be a floor at $5k but there were multiple habitable houses for $5k, and no buyers
If they’re not worth any money, then the tax burden of sitting on them shouldn’t be high enough to be a problem. But if it is, you can sell them cheap, abandon them to government auction, replat them with neighboring cheap lots do make ag land or a large lot for an industrial or multifamily development, or more.
“I can’t make a bunch of money selling or renting this lot” is not an excuse to just sit on land waiting for the value to go up.
Pricing of homes in food deserts has pretty much zero impact on the housing that could actually help low-income individuals.
The housing situation and relative benefits (and lack therof) to house residents in rural areas is just fundamentally distinct from the urban situation.
I like that this idea also punishes single family home owners for hoarding land. You could build a ton of apartments on a single American-sized sfh lot.
I don’t see that it does that. What do you mean?
That assumes that all land is taxed at a similar value. However my property at 1/5 of an acre in town is worth more than a standard suburban acreage.
I think this continues to discourage living in higher density downtowns where there is walkability and transit, while enocuraging sprawl because large single family suburban lots are cheaper so have lower tax
