|
Creative Destruction Helps
Last September I argued that creative destruction of houses could better the economic situation in the United States. The financial and social costs for keeping empty houses is higher than their value. Tear them down.
Some now seem to agree with that perspective:
[T]he two-story residence and three other luxurious model homes were crushed and hauled off for scrap, the latest fallout from Southern California’s real estate crash.
The homes were part of a planned 16-unit project in this community 100 miles north of Los Angeles. The Texas bank that owns the failed development decided to demolish the houses, a cheaper alternative to completing and selling them.
…
The four finished homes, however, were richly appointed with granite countertops, whirlpool bathtubs and dual-pane windows.
…
Construction halted in the summer of 2008, and the homes became a nuisance, attracting vandals and squatters, Hester said. The city first cited the developer for failing to maintain the property in July, [city spokeswoman] Hester said.
“People were taking sinks, the air conditioners. For someone who wanted to do no good, it provided an opportunity,” she said.
The bank repossessed the development in August, Hester said. Demolition permits were granted April 9.
Cities with too many empty houses should attempt to re-concentrate their suburbs. If a majority of houses in an area is empty, the local government should help people to move out from the rest too and then take down all the houses. That will be much cheaper in terms of fireguards, police and general infrastructure costs than attempting to keep those areas alive.
Creative destruction is best and easiest to do to right the wrongs of exaggerated construction.
b your argument makes sense for many within the present structure. For ex. being a bank and taking over a foreclosed house that is ‘worth’ little and simultaneously being forced to upgrade, obey regs, maintain, pay property taxes, local rates (or whatever) clean, sanitize, etc. all of which in the US and elsewhere can cost a bomb.
The house becomes a liability…being the owner costs much more than what can be realized, either in the hope of a future sale, psychological boons, or as future or present incoming rent, etc. So the house has to go, to free the owner of that liability.
From an ecological pov, the idea of a sound structure (dangerous, pest infested, etc. is another topic) being destroyed is too awful. It is an incredible waste of materials, energy, work, etc.
Homelessness in the US is high, very high…It is not the houses themselves that should be condemned but the tax-social structure. Why not have Gvmt. housing in abandoned buildings?
That said, certainly many ‘housing developments’ or even individual dwellings, as projected, built or partly built in 04-08, or somewhat before, could never be ‘sustainable’ or ‘viable’ (whatever that means, leaving it vague for now, it will always depend on a particular context) or ‘attractive‘ (ditto), etc.
Such houses represent mal-investment which should be recognized as such, and need to be eliminated. They were built on the presumption of housing prices rising for ever, without taking any other considerations into account.
The crux thus is that the decision to build, develop, or to destroy, trash, is based on expectation of profit or diminishing loss in dollar terms, and not on any other criteria.
Bubble mania and ‘capitalism’ at its excruciating worst, because of the waste, which is stupendous, but allowed, welcomed even, branded as rational, under dollar accounting.
Homeowners who are thrown out often trash the property. They themselves perceive it was ‘no good’ or that they were ‘fooled’..and show they have no interest in anything except revenge and escaping with as little debit as possible, and ensuring that no one else can profit from their misfortune (insofar as they are able to influence that.) They replicate, or implement, follow, the trash and burn capitalism they have been brought up in, bought into. Lost and angry, they facilitate the work of the banks or new forced owners by creative destruction, abandonment, disgusting pollution, etc.
And so it goes. (Vonnegut said.)
Posted by: Tangerine | May 5 2009 18:15 utc | 13
|
