An REIT in Chicago, Illinois which is able to come in and quite literally leech the low-income wealth of a community in East Palo Alto ...yes, that REIT should have to pay the city of EPA or the state of California for that "opportunity".
Should it be paid for in the form of another tax? Maybe, but that is not always efficient, as you pointed out. So how else could it pay? How about in direct shares given to residents of takeover properties in exchange for their rent or rent increases? I like that idea better. Because whether it's rent or shares... they're both going into the REIT's bankroll; this might actually make renting an appealing opportunity (and create the good kind of competition among landlords) if renters could (or had to be) paid a refund or rebate based on REIT dividends.
Maybe this is what Eisenhower originally envisioned.. it was the 1960's and the Interstate highway system was still being developed.
Let the wealth and assets of a city/community stay in the city. Residents with more disposable income (especially low-income) tend to spend it locally -- or let them save to be able to buy their way out of the slavery of renting.
The REIT is making an investment in the housing; they're due a return, otherwise no one will invest in this type of housing, and thus there will be no housing. Pretty simple economics. No return on investment, no investment.
And the REIT does pay taxes to EPA, property taxes. If they have employees based in CA, they pay payroll taxes as well. It's not as if some faceless Borg is siphoning out the good people of EPA's money without contributing anything.
> he REIT is making an investment in the housing; they're due a return
That is not how investments work. No one is "due" anything. You seem to be saying strong-arm tactics are OK on vulnerable populations because profit is at stake.
The argument as I've seen it is that society will be better off in terms of various measures: equality, innovation, opportunity, peace, etc. That seems easier to sell than anyone "owing" anything.
"this might actually make renting an appealing opportunity (and create the good kind of competition among landlords) if renters could (or had to be) paid a refund or rebate based on REIT dividends."
So basically renting would be more appealing if....the rent was less? Well sure. Nearly all purchasers off goods would enjoy lower prices!
Should it be paid for in the form of another tax? Maybe, but that is not always efficient, as you pointed out. So how else could it pay? How about in direct shares given to residents of takeover properties in exchange for their rent or rent increases? I like that idea better. Because whether it's rent or shares... they're both going into the REIT's bankroll; this might actually make renting an appealing opportunity (and create the good kind of competition among landlords) if renters could (or had to be) paid a refund or rebate based on REIT dividends.
Maybe this is what Eisenhower originally envisioned.. it was the 1960's and the Interstate highway system was still being developed.
Let the wealth and assets of a city/community stay in the city. Residents with more disposable income (especially low-income) tend to spend it locally -- or let them save to be able to buy their way out of the slavery of renting.