Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive
It's not just insurance rates but rather why the insurance rates have been so punitive. If you develop a larger project lawyers can have a party trying to eat your shorts. It's their contingency fees that benefit only them that make the risk unattractive in a market where there's no shortage of alternative investments.
I recently read (somewhere) that insurance adds about $15,000 per unit. How much of that was bcuz of litigation risk wasn't defined.
Pre-recession the mortgage industry was indeed freewheeling but we've also had non-freewheeling markets where condos sold just fine.
Can't speak specifically to how condos might pencil but those that are being built seem to be selling quickly. Buying of course gives one ownership of a potentially appreciating asset with fixed P&I payments (assuming a fixed rate mortgage).
Couple of issues with that study. It's rather dated at this point. While dated through part of 2013 the data goes back to 2000/2003 and too much has changed since the recession.
But bunt is absolutely correct that it boils down to politics and special interests (on both sides). That's not to say there aren't rational (sounding) arguments on each side. Such is the nature of politics. I could counter your own points and back and forth we could go.
Sometimes it's best to pull away from the noise and look at the bigger picture. How 'bout we take a more common sense and rational approach that merely levels the playing field with other cities where the litigation risk is normal or sane and then let the market do what it wants to do?
|
Only referenced that study because Bunt mentioned it and was so vehement that it is the smoking gun. Inconclusive at best.
How many of these other peer cities that we want to compare ourselves to had a Beauvallon?
Threaded Mode