--- Ben Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Markets ... don't do well in things like supplying housing in > proper configurations and locations because housing is a durable good that once sold is relatively permanent (30-100 years or more).<
It depends on the particular market. If a housing development is owned by a corporation and leased to occupants, then the corporation is able to redevelop it later when demand warrants a higher density or different use. Spencer MacCallulm has written on this, calling such corporate communities "entrecoms" (forthcoming chapter in a book on policy justification edited by myself and Dan Klein). > Since they won't be living in the places more than 5 or > 10 years they don't care if the place is ugly to most people or shoddily constructed.< The main cause is government. In private community associations there are often covenants that prohibit ugly exteriors. As for shoddy construction, would this not reduce the market value of the building and liability in case of fire or earthquake? On the other hand, cheap construction makes it less costly to tear down and rebuild. > Related to this is the famous prisoner's dilemma.... > nobody invests and the neighborhood continues its downward > spiral. The dilemma is solved by contractual agreements, such as the covenants of the residential association. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
