/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.799664]

Hey, has anyone ever considered flipping an entire town? Like house flipping but with more ground covered.

Like hypothetically, some of my college buddies and I could buy lots of property in some podunk down for under 40k per building, make the houses nice, set up green businesses and froyo shops, maybe a golf course, and eventually cost of living will get so high that the people currently living there will be forced to sell to us.

Has this been done?

[Anonymous No.799687]

Isn't this just gentrification? You're taking nearly all of the neighborhood and making it better.

[Anonymous No.799691]

>>799687
Many people have done this before. There's even a word for it.

[Anonymous No.799696]

>>799687
It seems like a great idea. Why don't more people do it? Wouldn't you be creating more wealth?

[Anonymous No.799699]

>>799664
actually even entire countries ! It was called colonialism.

[Anonymous No.799700]

Yeah they are even doing it to London. It's a prime example of how large these people go. They are buying like whole subsidized districts and tearing them down.

[Anonymous No.799703]

>>799696
It's expensive and finding opportunities for it is difficult

[Anonymous No.799706]

>>799664
That is what Trump does, exception it Atlantic City. God speed.

[Anonymous No.799713]

>>799664

I looked into this back in 2005 for Nashville, and found that even those people who are well connected have a hard time engineering gentrification. Even though there is a pattern to the sale of properties, it is fuzzy and there are too many variables (critical mass of sales, community cohesiveness, state of the local economy, growth rates.....) and the only people in a position to take advantage are too big to compete with (Universities, large developers, politicians).
Even governments fail when it comes to predicting how gentrification unfolds. In St.Paul, MN in the 1980s, the gentrification was sponsored by the city, with the sale of $1 houses with the promise of renovation, which worked extremely well, but that gives you the idea of the size of such an endeavor and the cooperation of all parties.
The one exception to the need for government support seems to be parts of Detroit, but that really isn't gentrification; it is urban renewal. The current owners of the depressed property are the banks, and the size and types of communities are small and eclectic. .

[Anonymous No.799731]

>>799699
ayyyyy

[Anonymous No.799737]

I often wonder why this isn't a thing.
I mean yeah , it's difficult to engineer in your own, but why not do it distributed.

I mean maybe home grown vested groups engineering the gentrification. There's tons of people who have money but don't want to get screwed into buying extremely overvalued boomer houses. Why not unite by buying up impoverished areas and building a whole new community for them.

Honestly, in the city I live in there's so much prime real estate taken up by niggers, and no one would move in one by one because if the gentrification doesn't actually happen, they'll just have to either sell for nothing or stay and get murdered.

[Anonymous No.799740]

>>799737
The problem with it is crime. If you've ever been to an actually shitty city, there are legitimate gangs that don't care about paying their rent. It doesn't matter how high your cost of living is, they just rob people anyways, and that keeps your cost of living down since you're in a dangerous neighborhood.

This is the only good reason to push for better wealth distribution, poor people get desperate and fuck up good things for the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.799742]

building housing tracts is easier and more profitable

[Anonymous No.799748]

>>799740
No my point was buy up whole communities at a time to insulate themselves from the crime.

Like if it's one guy buying one house, of course he's going to get fucked up. One person can't start gentrification alone.

But if like 20 or so people buy up a block or two, that gets rid of a lot of bad apples. They'll obviously not buy into the "snitches get stitches" culture that makes these crime ridden ghettos in the first place, so it will all begin to unravel. If they can secure an entire neighborhood it's even better.

Like you said, these guys living there aren't paying rent, and I'm guessing they could be chased out relatively easily. Maybe push out those section 8/projects houses to the edges of the city.

It just frustrates me that I have to live like an hour from the heart of the city because that's the only place that's affordable, and meanwhile niggers 5 miles from downtown spend their their lives making their torn up broken communities worse for themselves and everyone around them.

[Anonymous No.799751]

>>799664

It kind of reminds me how some guy bought up some game or whatever on Ebay. After buying every copy at around like $5 he was then selling them easily for like $25 each.

I guess if you find something undervalued that requires a lot of money to purchase all of it that you could pull it off.

[Anonymous No.799755]

>>799664

Some companies do that, for example Facebook recently was one of the companies awarded the redevelopment contract for Hunters Point (former naval yard) in San Francisco.

Problem is, it takes a lot of money to do these sort of things. Even flipping a single house is hard, even in shitty places like Detroit the cost of razing the house and building anew along with paying backtaxes is too high to potentially profit on.

Your idea has been done before but it's not a thing individuals could do given the high cost and huge amount of effort, for at best a gamble at breaking even.

>>799748

>No my point was buy up whole communities at a time to insulate themselves from the crime.

That's what gated communities are, however those only work out if you live in South Africa or if your buyers are incredibly rich. The latter will usually prefer to buy into homes in regular towns, and not crime-ridden ones.

Even then, it's impossible to "insulate" a specific area from crime. Even military armories and prisons in heavy crime areas have issues with theft, vandalism, muggings, prostitution and drug dealing. T

>and I'm guessing they could be chased out relatively easily

Eviction is done with most Sheriff departments, and if the tenant can't pay for the eviction then the landlord is (at least in my area). As a result, if you got five people (more likely 10-15 given that this crowd doesn't care about residential density ordinances) that need to get evicted you're going to need at least five officers to remove them. On Union pay, that's a shitload of money for what is at best going to be a revolving door with tenants. Hence why section 8 is so popular: because land management companies get paid from the government and not the tenants.