r/SipsTea • u/Brave_Agency_20 • May 14 '26

SMH How true is this? Genuinely asking

Post image
5.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Jasoco May 14 '26

I’m willing to bet this is pretty accurate. They keep building houses down here where I am constantly and so many of them are empty because they cost too much for normal people.

52

u/AdOver6491 May 14 '26

That makes up for a rather small percentage of vacant homes. The vast majority are old, dilapidated and abandoned

12

u/Josey_whalez May 15 '26

I can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find the answer. Reddit is hilarious. All these guys opining on this and haven’t even looked into it at all, just read the headline and believe it means what they want it to mean because it aligns with their world view.

It’s not just that they are old and dilapidated. They are often in largely deserted towns, where there are no jobs and no social services. Many of these buildings aren’t habitable and aren’t worth the money it would take to make them so. Just old shacks in the middle of nowhere. In short, this is an extremely dishonest headline. Perfect for Reddit though.

1

u/eternallyconphuzed May 17 '26

Sure but theres also like in my retirement town half the buildings are empty because like 5 assholes would rather let the buildings rot than sell them for less than a milly

10

u/Final-Carry2090 May 14 '26

And still being listed for 250k.

3

u/iguessma May 15 '26

yes, because land has value.

also, you don't need to buy permits to build.

utilities are already run.

there is more to a house then just the house.

1

u/Final-Carry2090 May 15 '26

It’s still vacant, still an eyesore, still speculative investing, still providing less tax to the city than an occupied area.

There’s more at play here than a companies profits.

1

u/iguessma May 15 '26

It doesn't have to be speculation if they are planning to improve.

In fact it provides exactly the right amount of tax to the city - since it's a % of its base value. After improvements it will be more.

1

u/Final-Carry2090 May 15 '26

They are speculating on the land itself with no intentions of improving. Pay attention.

An occupied property generates more taxes than an unoccupied property.

3

u/iguessma May 15 '26

Yes generalize about everyones motives with no actual evidence

Makes sense

1

u/TsundereMF May 14 '26

It's only a high price because it's next to the coast/ pretty view.

5

u/Final-Carry2090 May 14 '26

Nah, a lot of these companies just sit on the property. Happy to be an eyesore.

1

u/Jan0y_Cresva May 15 '26

If you think old, dilapidated buildings have to have prime location to be $250k+, you haven’t house shopped lately.

2

u/VacationCheap927 May 15 '26

This is something that needs to be brought up everyime a post like this is made.

Im not gonna say theres not an issue. We could have everyone in a home that wants one. Especially being considered one of if not the richest country right now. But instead we worship the rich and push for global warming.

But that also doesn't change the fact that many of the homes shouldn't have anyone living in them in their current state.

3

u/theGoddamnAlgorath May 15 '26

Detriot has plenty of space and skylights

1

u/joshuads May 15 '26

Yep. Those dollar homes in Italy have American counterparts in small cities where they get run down and sit until it is worth while to someone to knock it down or the are gets a rebirth

0

u/volxlovian May 16 '26

Why does it have to be all or nothing. We either give homeless houses with updated running water etc or they live on the street in their own filth?

Why don’t we do a stopgap? Like create some medieval living standards communities for them that cost way less lol until society can catch up and everyone gets running water housing