I’m not sure how to feel about this story. Should I be happy that the area is experiencing a boom in renovation and growth? or should I be sad that “2/3 of the home sales were to investors, who don’t plan to live in the houses?” Or the auctioneer reminding investors that there’s no rent-control in Baltimore, “so you can raise the rent whenever you want?”

I’d like to think that more people moving into the city and surrounding areas will boost the tax base and make things a little better.

Date posted: August 15, 2005 | Filed under house | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to Oh, Swell.

  1. therobguy says:

    The way I see it, from my perch downtown, is that any investor who buys more than one property should either a) have to live in one of them or b) ensure a certain percentage of their properties are priced low-enough for the less-well off of Baltimore City.

  2. asg says:

    “[R]ent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”

    — Assar Lindbeck (economist), 1972.

  3. the idiot says:

    True, and duly noted. Growing up around NYC, I heard stories about rent control there. However, the picture I saw in my head was that of Snidely Whiplash buying up whole blocks of formerly blue-collar properties, hiking the rents to displace the families living there, and renting them out to single urban professionals.

    One of the things I liked (and tried to become a part of) when I lived in the city was the sense of community—my house was on a block of family-owned houses. As time went on, people died or moved, and asshole yuppies moved in. The families I had been friends with were replaced by people who never smiled or said hello.

    I suppose this is just my rambling ode to a dying way of life in America, but there it is. Who knows; maybe this is a good thing for Baltimore.