The article states that it’s spread over 20 states, which I think is an important caveat to note. Not that it isn’t still a large sum of money, but that it’s a far smaller sum in any given location.
Especially important to note because my original comment was in reply to someone claiming that cities had burned to the ground.
It’s an overstated claim that functions as a dog whistle.
Minnesota burned to the ground which is easy to find with any non-bias searching.
…the entire state? Come on.
minneapolis got hit pretty hard.
> In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80.
Third in "desirability for property developers", as if that were some kind of important metric for a city.
It is. Portland went from shockingly massively increasing home prices to declining home prices in no small part due to this.
Isn't it generally better to have affordable housing than shockingly massively increasing home prices?
Clearly not, in the context of this discussion. No city is better off by eviscerated its tax base.
Only if anyone want to live there. Why would anyone want to purchase a house or live in a place how ever affordable it is, where a mob might burn their house down.
The way I read this is that the more desirable a city is to property devs, the lower the cost of housing, which seems true. Affordable housing = Less scarcity, less scarcity comes from building more
The link has a paywall. Portland ranked third in what?