phantom tollbooths in Davis Sq. ...

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

apropos of nothing and not a serious proposal but I was thinking about sales taxes last night, the discussion of tolls on 93 south and something to do with all the border violence going on in the world these days. Suddenly I had this image of tollbooths/checkpoints on the roads entering Davis Sq. Weird but interesting to speculate on.

The growth in popularity of the sq. has brought higher rents and housing prices, higher prices in stores and bars and general gentrification. The city of Somerville and the property owners benefit but the residents don't. Would be interesting to have a toll that went to offset the costs of gentrification to people who actually live here.

Comments

[komos.livejournal.com]

Ok, true or false: a person who has $5000 in the bank and owns a home in which they've ten years of equity is better off financially than a person who had $5000 in the bank and currently lives in a rental unit.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

sure, in general the person who has the equity is better off...but that wasn't the question. The questions was, starting with a given that a person owns a home and has N years equity in it, is that person ALWAYS better off and does that person ALWAYS benefits when the property values rise quickly? I wasn't arguing that owning property is worse than renting, nor that rising property values cannot be a help, but that the equation that clevernonsense proposes, that "Increased property values = increased personal wealth for the owner of that property. Period." is so simplistic as to be nonsensical.

[komos.livejournal.com]

So the essence of what you're saying is that a homeowner with equity is wealthier than the renter, despite both having precisely the same liquid assets.

That aside, the original point to which you responded was:

Also: most property owners in Davis are also residents (ie, condo/house owners) and they benefit greatly from increased property values.

That is a simple equation which you've not really refuted. You've suggested that increased property values may lead to increased tax burdens, and that they may force uses for the property outside of what you would consider ideal. In no way, however, have you demonstrated that you do not benefit greatly from the rising property values.

You've also listed a great number of things that make it difficult to consider moving from an occupied property which can actually be tied to intangible benefits. I'm sure it would be a lot easier for you to consider selling if you were surrounded by decaying triple-deckers with overgrown yards and there was rampant gang violence in your neighborhood. Instead, you enjoy the relative comfort and safety of a neighborhood that has grown significantly in the past ten years, and has attracted people to whom you've been able to connect. Do you pay for that privilege? Sure! Can you actually say that you don't benefit greatly? You surely can't have chosen to buy in Davis Square in 1996 without being aware that property values were going up, and of the resulting ancillary benefits. If not, why didn't you buy in Dudley Square?