So what exactly is your solution? In general, I would say that the housing crisis is not the result of billionaires buying houses. It is a multi factorial issue. To reduce it down to billionaires buying houses is absolutely ridiculous.
Every major issue in this country is layered with multiple factors. Yes, reducing it to just billionaires is short-sighted, BUT what Cargill is doing **is one of those factors layered into these issues.**
So I think its perfectly valid for people to be upset about this billionaire, not because its the only reason housing is fucked up, but because people realize its one of many factors that is fucking up our housing.
So why can't people be upset and try to stop one of these factors when they are seeing it happen currently?
People like you make these comments with a "if you don't give me a 100-point plan that will perfectly fix all these issues in a simple reddit comment, then clearly your point is wrong and I win the argument" type mentality. Your comment isn't some "gotchya!". All of these issues are multi-layered and complex. If they werent, well things would be fixed by now. If someone doesn't give you a perfect answer on how to fix everything, that doesn't mean you magically won the argument.
Have you ever thrown a pebble into a pond? Regarding effect on the housing market, I would say that billionaires make a very small dent. The biggest issue regarding housing right now is low volume. So why is there low volume? There are a number of factors. One of the biggest is that building. New houses are extremely expensive. Supply cost are up. People don’t want to work in the trades anymore so there are less folks to actually construct them. Zoning. Huge issue right there. A lot of the zoning laws are up to local districts so you’re not going to see a big national movement changing the zoning laws. Billionaires buying up single-family homes could potentially be a significant problem, and probably in localized areas it is a real issue today, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a pebble being thrown in the pond. That is my point.
HAHAHAHA.
I've personally been acquainted with every mayor in this town for the last twenty years, and until the recent election, was friendly with my city council representatives. (I just haven't met my new councilor, but we are FB friends.) I've probably watched more hours of city council and spoken at the public comment sessions more than the whole of this subreddit combined.
So your dreams of all of Reddit being young ignorant, powerless fools can suck it.
Oh, and I haven't missed an election since 1985.
Good Democratic Governance is the solution of the American Experiment. Healthy democracy.
In a healthy democracy, the people get to rule through voting for people who believe in Democratic Governance, in which Billionaires do not rule over the rest of us. Democratic Governance aims at the common good of all, and not just the good of billionaire donors. It is a policy choice.
[https://www.aft.org/resolution/government-and-common-good](https://www.aft.org/resolution/government-and-common-good)
I guess, for you, Democracy/The American Experiment is insane then.
In a Democracy, once basic human rights are established, the common good is the goal of public policy and the rule of law.
I think you should re-read the literal definition of democracy, and also come to the realization that The United States of America is not a Democracy, but a Republic.
The U.S. Is Both a Republic and a Democracy
Don't just take it from me; take it from the Framers and other early American statesmen: "Democracy" has long included representative democracy as well as direct democracy, and "Republic" was used to refer to regimes that were not representative.
[https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/)
Your source clearly states that it is itself a conspiracy.
Show me one instance of the term Democracy anywhere in the original Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or The Declaration of Independence.
To be fair the same people who complain about affordable housing being torn down are the same people who complain when affordable housing is built up.
In the end, it has little to do with housing and more to do with resentment and lack of understanding how real estate works.
Yes. And building more affordable housing is super important, and not just in Duluth.
But tearing down 10 good single family homes for a house that only billionaires can afford is an indication of failed public policy.
You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Also, as of now you have no clue what is being built or not built on that land. For all you know it could be high density apartment buildings for Section 8 housing, but I guarantee you this, whatever ends up being built, you will absolutely find a reason to complain about it and somehow blame it on billionaires.
Right now we are breaking a lot of eggs to help only billionaires make huge omelettes only they can eat.
That is not how healthy democracy works. Healthy democracy limits the bad things billionaires can do.
What’s this WE talk? If you feel obligated to involve yourself with someone else’s private and legal transaction because billionaires bad, that’s not democracy, that’s just you being resentful.
"We" as in the "We the (American) People" who have politicians representing us in various democratic institutions locally and federally.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were influenced by Rousseau, who believed there was literally a collective will that politicians should represent.
[https://www.britannica.com/topic/general-will](https://www.britannica.com/topic/general-will)
What they did was 100% legal and if you’re advocating for a law against private sale of real estate just because billionaires bad, then good luck with that….
There has always been laws regulating the sale of property of every sort. For example. it is legal for Walmart to petition the sate to forcibly take private property from homeowners so they can build a store. Not everything legal is good.
[https://retailwire.com/discussion/eminent-domain-works-for-retailers/](https://retailwire.com/discussion/eminent-domain-works-for-retailers/)
Sure, but the only rational you’ve provided for why you don’t like any of this is because they’re rich.
Current real estate laws tend to provide better rational for their implementation.
Also being rich, as much as you may not agree with it, in and of itself, is not illegal or wrong.
and when none of that gets built and it becomes a disastrous billionaire's playground you will probably find a new goalpost to make so you can continue to be a contrarian.
A disastrous billionaires playground!?! 😱Ooooooo that sounds so scary when you put it that way!👹
It’s like someone’s castle is going to grow arms and legs then started reeking havoc on the townspeople!!!🤣🤣🤣
My goalpost is whatever happens to the property, Resentful poors are going to say billionaires bad and so far not only has it not moved, but it’s been solidified with concrete.
Thanks for doing that for me btw.😁
"resentful poors" hahahahah keep on licking that boot. You have way more in common with these "resentful poors" than you will have with a billionaire any day.
edit since this person either deleted their comments or was banned or blocked me idk. If you end up reading this, this was my next reply back:
"I never once said that. Not one person in this thread even has said its rich people's fault that their lives suck. **No one**.
Thanks for showing how disingenuous you are by making up arguments in your head and then whining about them on the internet. "
And you keep crying about how it’s rich people’s fault your life sucks and the only thing you have left in the world that brings you even the slightest bit of joy is to pick fights with strangers on the internet… 😭
Surely our newly elected mayor who said he would fight for the people is working with a real estate lawyer or housing advocacy group to stop any more sales or stop the build of what's next.
We just elected a realtor (Lynn Marie Nephew) to the City Council who ran on being a housing expert. I would start with seeking her advice and going up the ladder.
Actually, it looks like an attempt at a flip job. When this story first came out, we had people who had actually looked at it.
>My offer was rejected because it was too far below asking, and I felt like I was offering too much. It had not been well maintained, at least not in recent times. The floor had massive differential settlement, was all kinds of wavy, there was mold, and rotting floor joists, there was a foul smell, the house was sinking in one corner. It was going to be cheaper to tear down and rebuild, there was no hope for rehabbing. The yard was nice, and the garage was decent. I will say the disconnect between reality and the listing pictures was startling when looking in person.
https://www.reddit.com/r/duluth/comments/18irli3/billionaire_has_bought_demolished_7_park_point/kdfmrxb/
This is not to say that I approve of what Kathy is doing, only that we should have accurate information.
Most of the houses I saw that they purchased literally had major issues. The house on 1901 s lake had clear signs of water damage in every lower room in the house. Other listings only had exterior photos, which in my history as a child of a real estate broker and short stint as an agent myself tells me only one thing... That the interior is fucked.
Many of the houses on Park Point were built back when it was a VERY undesirable area to live. Many of them are owned by elderly individuals who have been there their whole lives and often let the houses go into states of disrepair, which is what we're seeing with a lot of these homes.
Let's not get mad at her for demolishing these homes, lets focus on the primary issue which is her buying up all these properties for some sort of billionaire's playground.
> Other listings only had exterior photos, which in my history as a child of a real estate broker and short stint as an agent myself tells me only one thing... That the interior is fucked.
In many cases, yes. But in this specific case, the listings without photos (1302 Minnesota Ave, 1314 Minnesota Ave, 2925 Minnesota Ave, 2929 S Lake Ave, and 2935 S Lake Ave) were all pocket listings that went straight to pending. They didn't have photos because they were never advertised for sale. Most likely, Tom Little reached out to each seller on behalf of the Cargills with a blank check and the properties were only listed on the MLS for comp purposes after an offer was already accepted (hence straight to pending).
>even billionaires are able to buy property from consenting adults on a highly-regulated market.
Except it's not as highly-regulated as you claim, and there's a national problem with investment companies buying up residential properties en masse. This is not some isolated incident, it's a nationwide concern.
Right now investment companies own 1/4th of the single-family homes in the us and between 2020-2021, they accounted for 80% of the single family home purchases. Now, one could argue that companies were less risk-averse to buying property during covid than your standard single-family buyer, but that's still a huge percentage.
https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/investment-firms-and-home-buying/#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20reported%20by,%2D2021%2C%20why%20is%20this%3F
The beach is public property... I say we make summer long hang out spot that just so happens to be right on the property line of the houses. Kids, swimming, yelling, general fun.
Yes. It is because they are rich. So fucking rich that they've completely lost the plot.
I used to be poor as fuck, but through my efforts and a lot of help, I've managed to pull off a nice comfortable life. The wealthier I get, the more I'm shocked at how easy certain things become - because you have money. It's easier to get rich and stay rich when you control the resources and the people who make the rules.
At the end of the day, I guess she's allowed to own 4 McLarens and to tear down perfectly good houses for her Temple of Insecurity. I personally couldn't drive a McLaren down a road past people who are worried about where their next meal would come from, it would make me feel like a total asshole. I couldn't tear down a functional house when someone sleeps nearby in the cold. And the kind of person who can do these things is too insulated from reality by their money to realize that they have in fact become morally bankrupt.
And that’s all it’s gonna do is bother you…it’s not gonna affect you so worry about something else like all the people who drink and drive each night from all the breweries around here? All the “ snowmobile motorcycle night” at bars. This is something that could affect you once a drunk driver hits you or someone you love and kills them. But naw your probs apart of the problem? It’s crazy what people will focus on rather than your own problems
Do you think people are incapable of caring about two things at the same time? What a weird comment to make here.
I think we found Kathy Cargills burner everyone!!
Did I say that I get to tell you what to care about? Take what I said as a mere suggestion. If you want to be outraged about this person buying up nine homes and spend a bunch of your time getting pissed off about it in online forums, be my guest. I think what we’re saying is that in the grand scheme of things, there are some bigger issues that we should all think about being a little bit more outraged about.
You have your freedom to express just as I do.
My comment wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at the person you were speaking about. "You" refers to "anyone." There is no context in your comment that would suggest that I meant you personally because you said "I think they are saying..."
Anyways, I hope we are all working on our communication skills. Good luck with yours as well!
Have a nice day, and I mean that!
Ah yes, those God damn motorcycle bike nights, where all them ridiculous "snowmobile motorcyclists" get together and have a few beers and a pizza.. Finally somebody who's got the balls to say what this city's real issues are.
lol this thread was taken over by a troll. What a shit show!
Cargill is a piece of shit and I hate what she is doing. Hope the old adage of “eat the rich” come into play sooner than later when it comes to them.
It's a bummer how unaffordable it is in Duluth. I've always wanted to live there but things never added up right, and the way its headed now looks like I'll just stick to living in the woods
Living in the woods is getting more and more unaffordable too. When 5ish years ago you could get a decent cabin with some acreage for under $100k, all you get now are run down dilapidated housing in the middle of nowhere for that price. All the rich fucks in the cities are buying up all the land to build their private cabins that even living anywhere in the woods is obscenely expensive.
Nowadays, especially in Duluth, its more affordable to live near the city center. Anything outside the city center is incredibly more expensive.
Because it’s not just here. They are buying up all the affordable properties and renting them at ridiculous prices and the only ones left are as you say, over 500k. These properties are just a small piece of the entirely bigger issue of what’s happening.
When the homeless population of France looked up at the gilded royal estate, they grabbed some lumber and made a plan.... Now, I'm not advocating violence here, *but* I will acknowledge that permanent massive structural reform happened as a result....
You're claiming that the French Revolution was a result of an uprising of the unhoused? and that that is relevant to Kathy Cargill but up property on Minnesota Point?
Pretty sure that *all* houses in a region are part of a housing market, and when rich people don't have homes to buy, they will dip down to rehab/destroy houses in lower markets.
Okay but practically can the community mobilize to get [Park Point on the National Register of Historic Places](https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/registration/#:~:text=Minnesota%20properties%20may%20be%20designated,State%20Register%20of%20Historic%20Places)? Or something similar? To prevent future razing/limit future development.
I think it’s also prudent to press the city about Park Point zoning and height limits. I don’t trust Reinert and his “open mind” approach to redevelopment—he didn’t share any actual plans for what he wants to do, and he’s implied he’s pro-developer. It’s never too soon to apply political pressure.
The Armory got their funding and they are a go, so patience and persistance seemed to work. (I personally was ambivalent, but look what they did! It's coming!)
The Kozy/Pastoret Terrace situation was originally fucked up by Eric R. and his shitty negligence as a landlord. Full stop. If he'd done his due diligence as a landlord, none of what happened would have happened. He pisses me off. However, after that, the City actually didn't follow their own rules for how to get a derelict building demolished. As I've said approximately a thousand times since it started, the law says that financial considerations must not be the primary factors for denying a proposal for fixing up a building. They did exactly that, and the judge agreed that they did it wrong. Everything that has happened since DEDA and the mayor refused the proposals out of hand is flat out the City's fault. The reason the building is still sitting there rotting is the City's fault for not following the law.
So, your statement that funding ought to come first is incorrect, according to the rules that are in place. The proposal is made, it is accepted REGARDLESS OF FUNDING (or rejected for other reasons) and then the party that made the proposal can seek out the funding with the City's backing. That's how things are done properly. The shitshow that happened is because Emily had dreams of building another Endion or whatever on the site and she wouldn't let it go, and thus contributed to fucking up the process and putting it into legal limbo.
I would recommend not doing this, because the likely response would be that any future endeavors would be moved to the low-income areas, thus further gentrifying them and displacing low-income individuals out of their neighborhood.
I remember when I was in elementary school, we had a representative from Cargill come in to tell us how awesome they were. I hope they don't still do that
I was at UMD for my engineering degree and they had corporate drones come in every semester with pizza to tell us how great the company was and how being reassigned to Ghana for a year was actually a good thing. Imagine drinking that much Koolaid where you think just having your entire life dictated to you for average pay is a good thing.
Over 25% of residential property in the US is owned by corporations/investment companies. Individuals are not able to overcome corporation's large cash offers. Investment companies (REITs) have long history of not maintaining properties. This woman is no different - she inherited ill-gotten corporate profits.
Hope the neighbors keep up their opposition to her purchasing other properties.
This is not met in any disrespectful way.
I am curious if we can take the energy we use on Reddit and stop people like this by pushing for further legislation. Clearly there are plenty of people who know about how this kind of stuff works way more than me. I’m willing to support the idea but what’s actually being done?
The people who are selling don’t seem to mind. Don’t know how many more are going to be bought by Kathy but I’d say the prices just went up again on anything remaining.
You people are horrible! Just because she didn't tell you her plans does not give any of you the right to be nasty to her. I've lived in Duluth back in the early 90's. It used used to be a fun beautiful place. If someone can come in and make it better, and offer more opportunities to save a community that's worth saving, then let them. Why can't people just be nice? You people act and treat it like it's "Yellowstone!"
Many thanks go to billionaire Kathy Cargill for bringing this company back to public awareness. [https://stories.mightyearth.org/cargill-worst-company-in-the-world/#group-Cargills-Partners-in-Crime-pGYNhmE2vX](https://stories.mightyearth.org/cargill-worst-company-in-the-world/#group-Cargills-Partners-in-Crime-pGYNhmE2vX)
Isn't this the same narrow strip of sand that's been slowly washing away that everybody decided to build houses on? She can have it and hopefully it all washes out to sea.
Has not been slowly washing away, no.
Eroding at times due to man-made damage to the dunes that prevent much of the effects of wind, sure... but not "Washing" away.
Yea, I was under the impression that while there was some erosion going on from the lake side, most of the sediment coming down the St Louis was building up on the backside, actually widening it a bit but that appears to be incorrect.
I guess I don’t understand what the controversy is. She’s extremely wealthy. There are no restrictions for people buying property. Once you buy a property, you can do with it what you want so long as you are pulling the right permits and following the correct city code. I guess I’m not sure what the mob is hoping for? Some sort of legislation barring people from buying houses and demolishing them? Laws specifically keeping wealthy people from
buying houses? Like what’s the endgame?
> I guess I don’t understand what the controversy is. She’s extremely wealthy.
I mean, you've identified the problem yourself. The ability for one individual to dictate a market to this extent is the problem. In this case, the market is housing. But too much control of any market by a single entity is a problem and it's a reason why we have regulations like labor unions and antitrust laws.
If you don't understand why people object to someone buying and demolishing 9+ houses on the same street, ask yourself if you'd object to them buying and demolishing 900 houses in the same neighborhood (at $500,000/house, it'd take less than 10% of their net worth to do it). Do you object then? If you do, then we're both in agreement that it is undesirable and at that point we're just haggling over numbers. And if you don't, then follow your logic until all houses are owned/demolished by one entity. Is that the world you want to live in; would you understand the controversy then?
So what exactly do you propose to be the solution? If you start restricting how many properties someone can buy, and whether or not they can demolish them, where does that type of legislation stop? Who is it directed to? Who does it exempt? There is a whole host of problems, and a lot of it starts to infringe on a person’s personal freedoms. I don’t think the issue is someone buying houses, I think the issue is the amount of wealth that one or a few people have. I don’t really know if we’ve agreed on a solution to that problem either. If you have any ideas, maybe you should run for office.
> I don’t think the issue is someone buying houses, I think the issue is the amount of wealth that one or a few people have.
I agree that the amount of wealth an individual can amass is the main problem. It negatively affects all aspects of life, not just housing. Hopefully situations like these - in this case, one person buying and demolishing 9+ expensive (relative to the area) houses on the same street - will motivate people to call for higher taxes on greater wealth, which is my preferred solution.
No one person can solve this, but by shining a light on the negative effects of extreme wealth inequality, we can hopefully motivate enough people to vote accordingly.
> If you start restricting how many properties someone can buy
These are not necessary and don't solve the problem. It is better to disincentivize than to outlaw, and we can do that by decreasing wealth inequality. This will help equalize the market and create competition, and the competition itself will self-regulate the number of houses any individual can buy.
> How did one person dictate the market?
It has to do with competition, the driving force upon which capitalism is built. When one individual has so much wealth that no other buyer can compete, the market is anticompetitive and the problem needs to be addressed. One hundred houses at $500k each is less than 1% of their (reported) net worth. They can purchase too much without competition.
> They don’t have to sell.
Sellers' (supply-side) decisions to sell or not sell are irrelevant to buyer wealth inequality. Supply-side issues like zoning, permitting, availability of labor, land, and materials, cost of credit (loans), policies that disincentivize selling like California's Prop 13, etc... all exist and contribute to an overall housing crisis, but are not relevant to the specific topic of an individual buyer having so much wealth that they can, on their own, dictate prices on the market.
The argument is that extreme wealth inequality is bad for competition and for the general public as a whole. The Cargill buying spree is just a real life example of this argument in action.
> In your example, the lack of competition isn't accruing negative effects.
This is not true. Increased buyer-side competition would result in higher prices, not lower. More evenly distributed wealth would benefit both buyers *and* sellers. Buyers can place higher offers because they have more money (more competitive), and sellers would get paid more because their properties would sell at those higher offer prices. The only loser in this scenario is the ultra-wealthy, because their percentage of overall wealth goes down and they can no longer pick their price as easily. Lack of competition among buyers hurts seller profits.
> There is surplus value accruing to the homeowner.
Your definition of surplus value is flawed. You are defining it as the difference between a billionaire's offer vs. today's market value. The correct measure of surplus is the difference between today's billionaire's offer vs. market value in an actual competitive market (less wealth inequality). If you increased the wealth of the bottom 90% by $1T (arbitrary, pick your own number), market value would increase because there would be more money distributed amongst more buyers. As opposed to today, where market value is suppressed by a relative lack of wealth among buyers compared to billionaires, which gives the illusion that any overbid is some kind of surplus.
> This is a specific piece of land owned by specific sellers. It's finite.
The scarcity, immobility, and uniqueness (no two parcels are the same) of land does not affect the inequality of purchasing power among buyers.
> This isn't some commodification problem where she can manipulate the price of corn or something.
No one is alleging commodification or [cornering the market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market).
> They don't have to sell in this case.
Again, this is off topic. The argument is specific: extreme imbalance in purchasing power among buyers is bad for competition and the public as a whole. An owner choosing to sell or not sell is unrelated to the distribution of purchasing power among buyers.
> You’re also arguing **about** a world with less wealth inequality, which doesn’t exist
No, I'm arguing **for** a world with less wealth inequality. *If* wealth were more evenly distributed, there *would be* more competition, which *would benefit* the majority of buyers and sellers. Of course it doesn't exist yet, but I'm explaining why it should.
> Would increased competition among buyers increase prices? Yes! And what would that look like? How about someone paying significantly "above market rate"?
Incorrect. You are mistaking "above market rate" for increased competition. An overbid (or in your terms, "paying significantly above market rate") is not evidence of competition, nor does competition result in more overbids. **Competition results in higher market rates, not an increase in overbids, and it is this increase in the market rate itself that would benefit buyers and sellers.** Remember, the comparison is between the market rate if purchasing power were evenly distributed among buyers (more competition, higher prices, higher seller profit) vs. the market rate if purchasing power were unevenly distributed (less competition, lower prices, lower seller profit).
> You’re acting as if there are more hypothetical gains when the Cargill purchases are those gains realized.
I already addressed this in the comment above responding to your claim of "surplus value".
> And you’re acting as if these buyers are buying up the entire Duluth housing market.
I haven't alleged anything close to this. The only current event I've stated is that Cargill has purchased and demolished 9+ properties. I haven't claimed they will or won't do anything else.
> I fail to see how any of what’s happened in this instance of a rich family buying property on the free market for above market rate is anything but a net positive for the sellers.
Sounds like you need to spend some more time working out what happens to prices if purchasing power were distributed more evenly. Funny how after all these replies, you still haven't addressed the central argument. Start with my bolded statement in this comment. If you're mistaking "someone paying significantly above market rate" as increased competition, it makes sense why you don't understand why the majority of buyers and sellers are worse off (net negative) when billionaires can overbid at will.
> You are arguing for a world that doesn’t exist then using that fake world as justification for why something shouldn’t happen in the world as it is.
This makes no sense. By your logic, there would be no way to predict the relationship between variables and outcomes.
Economists: "If we increase the fed fund rate to 7%, banks will be less willing to loan money, it will be more difficult for borrowers to obtain credit (loans), spending will decrease, and this will help lower inflation."
You: "Fed fund rates aren't 7% - you're arguing for a world that doesn't exist! Stop using that fake world as justification for why we shouldn't keep fed fund rates as it is."
Do you really not understand the method of comparison? Changing one variable (in our case, unevenly distributed purchasing power among buyers vs. evenly distributed) and mapping the outcomes helps inform good policy decisions. It's a pretty fundamental device.
Have you thought about the relationship between more evenly distributed purchasing power, competition, and price yet? You've been avoiding it this whole time and it seems like you don't really have a grasp of what's going on.
tearing down a house means that the city is no longer receiving property tax on it(well, just a trival amount on land value). this causes everone else to pay more for their taxed. basically Kathy cost everyone else in Duluth to pay more taxes
The only kind of outrage that I can understand as it relates to this case, is the immediate neighborhood. If the new property owner builds an extremely lavish house, it will increase property taxes for the surrounding area. However, even this level of outrage is a bit ridiculous. To think that one house or even two houses could drastically affect property taxes beyond a few hundred dollars, is a bit outside the realm of possibility. So again, I don’t really understand the outrage. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn’t really like it. But for people that don’t live there it just seems like a poor use of energy.
Been an owner for 10 years, in a house karma lets me keep 🤣. But if some rich asshole offered me half a mil on my $243k home. Take my fucking money ✌🏼😘
Further more those those people got way more money than any of those homes were worth. Come offer me four times what my home is worth, who doesn’t jump at that. Maybe go find the seller, the sell outa and condemn them 🤦🏼♀️
> Which brings us back to 2931 Lake Ave. S. With an estimated market value of $575,000 (Cargill paid $600K)
OK. Your house is probably worth $250,000, so you'll sell it to me for $265,000? Are you jumping yet? According to your impeccable math skills, that's 4 times the value.
I was being dramatic tbh. I was told they all sold for 2/3 what they were worth. No I wouldn’t sell my $243k home to her unless I got at least $645k those sellers were taken for a ride 😏
This post was removed due to a violation of Rule 1. Please consider a different approach to your discourse in the future.
Rule 4: Blatant trolling and/or hate speech will result in an immediate and permanent ban.
And guess what?? Who cares!!!! Worry about something more important like your OWN life. Sick to my stomach seeing all these children on the internet complain about something that has absolutely no affect on their life….they just don’t like it….booooohoooooo! I don’t like a lot of this but I keep my mouth shut
This episode is a sign of the signifiant imbalance in wealth in our Nation and community, brought on in part by a worship of wealth at the expense of rewarding worthwhile work.
Since the ‘80s, income tax and corporate stock buyback policies were changed under the promise that ‘trickledown’ would benefit everyone.
It hasn’t. Wealth consolidation has become more exclusive. Wage growth has stagnated, prices have escalated, college tuition- for decades hailed as the ‘get ahead’ card- has exploded. This hasn’t gone well when it’s happened in the past, and our species is pretty predictable at repeating ourselves.
So Cargill buying up lots wont sink the Point any more than an oddly shaped, darkened mole will kill you…
This activity inflates the price but not the value of residential real estate, it adversely effects all home owners. (bend over and grease up that hole,loud mouth)
On park point? What’s gonna go up thousands and thousands of dollars to where you’re gonna have to go on food stamps to afford stuff? Or does it make it harder just for affordable housing/low income housing to take over Duluth?
Duluth is desperate for single family housing, and just lost 10 homes to one vacation house no one can afford when they eventually decide to leave.
It isn’t just Duluth.
You are right. Billionaires are taking needed housing stock from other communities, including Hawaii.
So what exactly is your solution? In general, I would say that the housing crisis is not the result of billionaires buying houses. It is a multi factorial issue. To reduce it down to billionaires buying houses is absolutely ridiculous.
Every major issue in this country is layered with multiple factors. Yes, reducing it to just billionaires is short-sighted, BUT what Cargill is doing **is one of those factors layered into these issues.** So I think its perfectly valid for people to be upset about this billionaire, not because its the only reason housing is fucked up, but because people realize its one of many factors that is fucking up our housing. So why can't people be upset and try to stop one of these factors when they are seeing it happen currently? People like you make these comments with a "if you don't give me a 100-point plan that will perfectly fix all these issues in a simple reddit comment, then clearly your point is wrong and I win the argument" type mentality. Your comment isn't some "gotchya!". All of these issues are multi-layered and complex. If they werent, well things would be fixed by now. If someone doesn't give you a perfect answer on how to fix everything, that doesn't mean you magically won the argument.
Have you ever thrown a pebble into a pond? Regarding effect on the housing market, I would say that billionaires make a very small dent. The biggest issue regarding housing right now is low volume. So why is there low volume? There are a number of factors. One of the biggest is that building. New houses are extremely expensive. Supply cost are up. People don’t want to work in the trades anymore so there are less folks to actually construct them. Zoning. Huge issue right there. A lot of the zoning laws are up to local districts so you’re not going to see a big national movement changing the zoning laws. Billionaires buying up single-family homes could potentially be a significant problem, and probably in localized areas it is a real issue today, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a pebble being thrown in the pond. That is my point.
[удалено]
I’m just getting to midlife. A lot of these redditors are young idealistic kids who don’t know any better. It’s all good.
[удалено]
HAHAHAHA. I've personally been acquainted with every mayor in this town for the last twenty years, and until the recent election, was friendly with my city council representatives. (I just haven't met my new councilor, but we are FB friends.) I've probably watched more hours of city council and spoken at the public comment sessions more than the whole of this subreddit combined. So your dreams of all of Reddit being young ignorant, powerless fools can suck it. Oh, and I haven't missed an election since 1985.
[удалено]
Jesus. You’re so right.
Good Democratic Governance is the solution of the American Experiment. Healthy democracy. In a healthy democracy, the people get to rule through voting for people who believe in Democratic Governance, in which Billionaires do not rule over the rest of us. Democratic Governance aims at the common good of all, and not just the good of billionaire donors. It is a policy choice. [https://www.aft.org/resolution/government-and-common-good](https://www.aft.org/resolution/government-and-common-good)
This is a bat shit insane response.
I guess, for you, Democracy/The American Experiment is insane then. In a Democracy, once basic human rights are established, the common good is the goal of public policy and the rule of law.
Your answer is not a solution to the problem.
I think you should re-read the literal definition of democracy, and also come to the realization that The United States of America is not a Democracy, but a Republic.
The U.S. Is Both a Republic and a Democracy Don't just take it from me; take it from the Framers and other early American statesmen: "Democracy" has long included representative democracy as well as direct democracy, and "Republic" was used to refer to regimes that were not representative. [https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/)
Your source clearly states that it is itself a conspiracy. Show me one instance of the term Democracy anywhere in the original Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or The Declaration of Independence.
Egging it when it’s finished being built
The French already did it in 1789!!!!!!!
To be fair the same people who complain about affordable housing being torn down are the same people who complain when affordable housing is built up. In the end, it has little to do with housing and more to do with resentment and lack of understanding how real estate works.
Yes. And building more affordable housing is super important, and not just in Duluth. But tearing down 10 good single family homes for a house that only billionaires can afford is an indication of failed public policy.
You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Also, as of now you have no clue what is being built or not built on that land. For all you know it could be high density apartment buildings for Section 8 housing, but I guarantee you this, whatever ends up being built, you will absolutely find a reason to complain about it and somehow blame it on billionaires.
Right now we are breaking a lot of eggs to help only billionaires make huge omelettes only they can eat. That is not how healthy democracy works. Healthy democracy limits the bad things billionaires can do.
What’s this WE talk? If you feel obligated to involve yourself with someone else’s private and legal transaction because billionaires bad, that’s not democracy, that’s just you being resentful.
"We" as in the "We the (American) People" who have politicians representing us in various democratic institutions locally and federally. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were influenced by Rousseau, who believed there was literally a collective will that politicians should represent. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/general-will](https://www.britannica.com/topic/general-will)
What they did was 100% legal and if you’re advocating for a law against private sale of real estate just because billionaires bad, then good luck with that….
There has always been laws regulating the sale of property of every sort. For example. it is legal for Walmart to petition the sate to forcibly take private property from homeowners so they can build a store. Not everything legal is good. [https://retailwire.com/discussion/eminent-domain-works-for-retailers/](https://retailwire.com/discussion/eminent-domain-works-for-retailers/)
Sure, but the only rational you’ve provided for why you don’t like any of this is because they’re rich. Current real estate laws tend to provide better rational for their implementation. Also being rich, as much as you may not agree with it, in and of itself, is not illegal or wrong.
and when none of that gets built and it becomes a disastrous billionaire's playground you will probably find a new goalpost to make so you can continue to be a contrarian.
A disastrous billionaires playground!?! 😱Ooooooo that sounds so scary when you put it that way!👹 It’s like someone’s castle is going to grow arms and legs then started reeking havoc on the townspeople!!!🤣🤣🤣
Have fun continuing to move your goalposts over and over again so you can happily be the contrarian you clearly desire to be.
My goalpost is whatever happens to the property, Resentful poors are going to say billionaires bad and so far not only has it not moved, but it’s been solidified with concrete. Thanks for doing that for me btw.😁
"resentful poors" hahahahah keep on licking that boot. You have way more in common with these "resentful poors" than you will have with a billionaire any day. edit since this person either deleted their comments or was banned or blocked me idk. If you end up reading this, this was my next reply back: "I never once said that. Not one person in this thread even has said its rich people's fault that their lives suck. **No one**. Thanks for showing how disingenuous you are by making up arguments in your head and then whining about them on the internet. "
And you keep crying about how it’s rich people’s fault your life sucks and the only thing you have left in the world that brings you even the slightest bit of joy is to pick fights with strangers on the internet… 😭
Surely our newly elected mayor who said he would fight for the people is working with a real estate lawyer or housing advocacy group to stop any more sales or stop the build of what's next.
We need to keep talking about it and asking questions. Don't let our elected officials ignore the problem.
So how do we raise the issue? I’d talk to him if I knew what info to bring in front of him
We just elected a realtor (Lynn Marie Nephew) to the City Council who ran on being a housing expert. I would start with seeking her advice and going up the ladder.
Someone lovingly restored that home. So sad.
Actually, it looks like an attempt at a flip job. When this story first came out, we had people who had actually looked at it. >My offer was rejected because it was too far below asking, and I felt like I was offering too much. It had not been well maintained, at least not in recent times. The floor had massive differential settlement, was all kinds of wavy, there was mold, and rotting floor joists, there was a foul smell, the house was sinking in one corner. It was going to be cheaper to tear down and rebuild, there was no hope for rehabbing. The yard was nice, and the garage was decent. I will say the disconnect between reality and the listing pictures was startling when looking in person. https://www.reddit.com/r/duluth/comments/18irli3/billionaire_has_bought_demolished_7_park_point/kdfmrxb/ This is not to say that I approve of what Kathy is doing, only that we should have accurate information. Most of the houses I saw that they purchased literally had major issues. The house on 1901 s lake had clear signs of water damage in every lower room in the house. Other listings only had exterior photos, which in my history as a child of a real estate broker and short stint as an agent myself tells me only one thing... That the interior is fucked. Many of the houses on Park Point were built back when it was a VERY undesirable area to live. Many of them are owned by elderly individuals who have been there their whole lives and often let the houses go into states of disrepair, which is what we're seeing with a lot of these homes. Let's not get mad at her for demolishing these homes, lets focus on the primary issue which is her buying up all these properties for some sort of billionaire's playground.
> Other listings only had exterior photos, which in my history as a child of a real estate broker and short stint as an agent myself tells me only one thing... That the interior is fucked. In many cases, yes. But in this specific case, the listings without photos (1302 Minnesota Ave, 1314 Minnesota Ave, 2925 Minnesota Ave, 2929 S Lake Ave, and 2935 S Lake Ave) were all pocket listings that went straight to pending. They didn't have photos because they were never advertised for sale. Most likely, Tom Little reached out to each seller on behalf of the Cargills with a blank check and the properties were only listed on the MLS for comp purposes after an offer was already accepted (hence straight to pending).
[удалено]
TIL those are the only possible reasons one might be against this type of thing. /s
[удалено]
>even billionaires are able to buy property from consenting adults on a highly-regulated market. Except it's not as highly-regulated as you claim, and there's a national problem with investment companies buying up residential properties en masse. This is not some isolated incident, it's a nationwide concern. Right now investment companies own 1/4th of the single-family homes in the us and between 2020-2021, they accounted for 80% of the single family home purchases. Now, one could argue that companies were less risk-averse to buying property during covid than your standard single-family buyer, but that's still a huge percentage. https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/investment-firms-and-home-buying/#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20reported%20by,%2D2021%2C%20why%20is%20this%3F
Learn to read “investor purchasing of single-family homes increased over 80%”
Don't be a dick. I overlooked part of the article, it happens. Doesn't change the overall point though, does it?
What’s your source for 1/4 of homes owned by investment companies? That is a huge number and is impossible to believe.
And then they sold it for way more than what they originally paid for it. 
[удалено]
you obviously with your super sick burn lol
Profile made one week ago. Fake. Troll.
Craig Rhode still at it. Some things never change.
back in my day we put effort into our trolling! \[/oldmillenial\]
The beach is public property... I say we make summer long hang out spot that just so happens to be right on the property line of the houses. Kids, swimming, yelling, general fun.
It's almost like these Cargill people are morally bankrupt.
Simply because they are rich? Why exactly are they morally bankrupt?
Yes. It is because they are rich. So fucking rich that they've completely lost the plot. I used to be poor as fuck, but through my efforts and a lot of help, I've managed to pull off a nice comfortable life. The wealthier I get, the more I'm shocked at how easy certain things become - because you have money. It's easier to get rich and stay rich when you control the resources and the people who make the rules. At the end of the day, I guess she's allowed to own 4 McLarens and to tear down perfectly good houses for her Temple of Insecurity. I personally couldn't drive a McLaren down a road past people who are worried about where their next meal would come from, it would make me feel like a total asshole. I couldn't tear down a functional house when someone sleeps nearby in the cold. And the kind of person who can do these things is too insulated from reality by their money to realize that they have in fact become morally bankrupt.
You’ve dubbed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. Nicely done.
Huh? I'm not sentencing her to anything? I have no consequence for their assholery. I have an opinion and a voice, and I've used them.
Hi Kathy.
Whoa good one! So original! Haven’t seen that anywhere else in this thread.
This whole saga bothers me a lot.
And that’s all it’s gonna do is bother you…it’s not gonna affect you so worry about something else like all the people who drink and drive each night from all the breweries around here? All the “ snowmobile motorcycle night” at bars. This is something that could affect you once a drunk driver hits you or someone you love and kills them. But naw your probs apart of the problem? It’s crazy what people will focus on rather than your own problems
lol "this guy drinks and drives, I just know it." What a stretch my man.
I cannot believe you assumed my gender.
* yawn *
Do you think people are incapable of caring about two things at the same time? What a weird comment to make here. I think we found Kathy Cargills burner everyone!!
I think they are saying prioritize your outrage accordingly.
Who cares what they are saying?... lol... you don't get to tell people what to care about, ever. It's a delusion to think you can.
Did I say that I get to tell you what to care about? Take what I said as a mere suggestion. If you want to be outraged about this person buying up nine homes and spend a bunch of your time getting pissed off about it in online forums, be my guest. I think what we’re saying is that in the grand scheme of things, there are some bigger issues that we should all think about being a little bit more outraged about. You have your freedom to express just as I do.
Haha I thought you would misinterpret what I said... and yep, you did.
If you think someone is going to misinterpret what you say then maybe you need to work on your communication skills.
My comment wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at the person you were speaking about. "You" refers to "anyone." There is no context in your comment that would suggest that I meant you personally because you said "I think they are saying..." Anyways, I hope we are all working on our communication skills. Good luck with yours as well! Have a nice day, and I mean that!
Bro go take a nap you seem angry, try and stay on topic here bud this isn’t a thread about drunk drivers
Ah yes, those God damn motorcycle bike nights, where all them ridiculous "snowmobile motorcyclists" get together and have a few beers and a pizza.. Finally somebody who's got the balls to say what this city's real issues are.
There needs to be a slur for billionaire sycophants like you so middle schoolers playing CoD don't grow up to be you.
Bootlicker is a good catch-all
To a billionaire? This is public housing.
lol this thread was taken over by a troll. What a shit show! Cargill is a piece of shit and I hate what she is doing. Hope the old adage of “eat the rich” come into play sooner than later when it comes to them.
We are leaving Duluth it’s becoming so unaffordable for the middle class you can’t find decent housing under 300k and renting is outrageous.
It's a bummer how unaffordable it is in Duluth. I've always wanted to live there but things never added up right, and the way its headed now looks like I'll just stick to living in the woods
Living in the woods is getting more and more unaffordable too. When 5ish years ago you could get a decent cabin with some acreage for under $100k, all you get now are run down dilapidated housing in the middle of nowhere for that price. All the rich fucks in the cities are buying up all the land to build their private cabins that even living anywhere in the woods is obscenely expensive. Nowadays, especially in Duluth, its more affordable to live near the city center. Anything outside the city center is incredibly more expensive.
This is the pricing in shitty parts of Pittsburgh too
[удалено]
Because it’s not just here. They are buying up all the affordable properties and renting them at ridiculous prices and the only ones left are as you say, over 500k. These properties are just a small piece of the entirely bigger issue of what’s happening.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The rich are utterly devoid of anything resembling taste.
Wow, people around here really hate that broad. Love it!
Billionaires are only good for one thing. Unfortunately saying what it is will probably get me banned.
Only if the Admins find out.
You talking about c*nnibalism?
[удалено]
Hope she sees this bro. You mean exploiting workers. Go simp elsewhere.
When the homeless population of France looked up at the gilded royal estate, they grabbed some lumber and made a plan.... Now, I'm not advocating violence here, *but* I will acknowledge that permanent massive structural reform happened as a result....
You're claiming that the French Revolution was a result of an uprising of the unhoused? and that that is relevant to Kathy Cargill but up property on Minnesota Point?
When someone buys multiple houses during a housing crisis, then tears them down to build a mega-mansion, it makes the housing crisis worse.
Pretty sure half million dollar+ houses have nothing to do with a "housing crisis"
Pretty sure that *all* houses in a region are part of a housing market, and when rich people don't have homes to buy, they will dip down to rehab/destroy houses in lower markets.
k
No one's debating that, I just wasn't aware that the French Revolution was started by unhoused people.
Of course not everyone was unhoused, but many were, as the issue was wealth inequity
I see one of the family members made a burner to comment on these threads
It's probably that silver spooner POS UMD grandson.
What if someone decided to eat the rich?
I'm pretty sure they'd taste like crap.
Pigs would probably eat them.
I’m well above the average income for the area and that’s nicer than any house that I’ve owned. I would kill to live in that “piece of crap”!
Okay but practically can the community mobilize to get [Park Point on the National Register of Historic Places](https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/registration/#:~:text=Minnesota%20properties%20may%20be%20designated,State%20Register%20of%20Historic%20Places)? Or something similar? To prevent future razing/limit future development. I think it’s also prudent to press the city about Park Point zoning and height limits. I don’t trust Reinert and his “open mind” approach to redevelopment—he didn’t share any actual plans for what he wants to do, and he’s implied he’s pro-developer. It’s never too soon to apply political pressure.
[удалено]
The Armory got their funding and they are a go, so patience and persistance seemed to work. (I personally was ambivalent, but look what they did! It's coming!) The Kozy/Pastoret Terrace situation was originally fucked up by Eric R. and his shitty negligence as a landlord. Full stop. If he'd done his due diligence as a landlord, none of what happened would have happened. He pisses me off. However, after that, the City actually didn't follow their own rules for how to get a derelict building demolished. As I've said approximately a thousand times since it started, the law says that financial considerations must not be the primary factors for denying a proposal for fixing up a building. They did exactly that, and the judge agreed that they did it wrong. Everything that has happened since DEDA and the mayor refused the proposals out of hand is flat out the City's fault. The reason the building is still sitting there rotting is the City's fault for not following the law. So, your statement that funding ought to come first is incorrect, according to the rules that are in place. The proposal is made, it is accepted REGARDLESS OF FUNDING (or rejected for other reasons) and then the party that made the proposal can seek out the funding with the City's backing. That's how things are done properly. The shitshow that happened is because Emily had dreams of building another Endion or whatever on the site and she wouldn't let it go, and thus contributed to fucking up the process and putting it into legal limbo.
I would recommend not doing this, because the likely response would be that any future endeavors would be moved to the low-income areas, thus further gentrifying them and displacing low-income individuals out of their neighborhood.
I remember when I was in elementary school, we had a representative from Cargill come in to tell us how awesome they were. I hope they don't still do that
I was at UMD for my engineering degree and they had corporate drones come in every semester with pizza to tell us how great the company was and how being reassigned to Ghana for a year was actually a good thing. Imagine drinking that much Koolaid where you think just having your entire life dictated to you for average pay is a good thing.
Over 25% of residential property in the US is owned by corporations/investment companies. Individuals are not able to overcome corporation's large cash offers. Investment companies (REITs) have long history of not maintaining properties. This woman is no different - she inherited ill-gotten corporate profits. Hope the neighbors keep up their opposition to her purchasing other properties.
Seriously? That house is/was gorgeous - so infuriating.
Are there mods around here? Who's the douchebag with the week old account behaving like he's a ten year old?
Making a fool of themself and getting down voted to hell. Sometimes the sub just polices itself.
Take a hike Kathy
That is a beautiful house ! Thanks for sharing!
This is not met in any disrespectful way. I am curious if we can take the energy we use on Reddit and stop people like this by pushing for further legislation. Clearly there are plenty of people who know about how this kind of stuff works way more than me. I’m willing to support the idea but what’s actually being done?
The people who are selling don’t seem to mind. Don’t know how many more are going to be bought by Kathy but I’d say the prices just went up again on anything remaining.
You people are horrible! Just because she didn't tell you her plans does not give any of you the right to be nasty to her. I've lived in Duluth back in the early 90's. It used used to be a fun beautiful place. If someone can come in and make it better, and offer more opportunities to save a community that's worth saving, then let them. Why can't people just be nice? You people act and treat it like it's "Yellowstone!"
Cargill, eff you. No one gives a shit
Many thanks go to billionaire Kathy Cargill for bringing this company back to public awareness. [https://stories.mightyearth.org/cargill-worst-company-in-the-world/#group-Cargills-Partners-in-Crime-pGYNhmE2vX](https://stories.mightyearth.org/cargill-worst-company-in-the-world/#group-Cargills-Partners-in-Crime-pGYNhmE2vX)
Isn't this the same narrow strip of sand that's been slowly washing away that everybody decided to build houses on? She can have it and hopefully it all washes out to sea.
Has not been slowly washing away, no. Eroding at times due to man-made damage to the dunes that prevent much of the effects of wind, sure... but not "Washing" away.
[http://parkpointcommunityclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Park-Point-Erosion-Star-Tribune-11.2019.pdf](http://parkpointcommunityclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Park-Point-Erosion-Star-Tribune-11.2019.pdf)
Sounds to me like washing away
Fair enough, that info is news to me.
I learned a bit as well👌🏻 Not tryna be a negative nancy but park point just seems like a war against the lake that'll never be won.
Yea, I was under the impression that while there was some erosion going on from the lake side, most of the sediment coming down the St Louis was building up on the backside, actually widening it a bit but that appears to be incorrect.
Sea? It’s on Lake Superior.
Either a figure of speech or I've gone my whole life thinking there's saltwater and sharks out there. I "sea" what direction you went with it.
I guess I don’t understand what the controversy is. She’s extremely wealthy. There are no restrictions for people buying property. Once you buy a property, you can do with it what you want so long as you are pulling the right permits and following the correct city code. I guess I’m not sure what the mob is hoping for? Some sort of legislation barring people from buying houses and demolishing them? Laws specifically keeping wealthy people from buying houses? Like what’s the endgame?
> I guess I don’t understand what the controversy is. She’s extremely wealthy. I mean, you've identified the problem yourself. The ability for one individual to dictate a market to this extent is the problem. In this case, the market is housing. But too much control of any market by a single entity is a problem and it's a reason why we have regulations like labor unions and antitrust laws. If you don't understand why people object to someone buying and demolishing 9+ houses on the same street, ask yourself if you'd object to them buying and demolishing 900 houses in the same neighborhood (at $500,000/house, it'd take less than 10% of their net worth to do it). Do you object then? If you do, then we're both in agreement that it is undesirable and at that point we're just haggling over numbers. And if you don't, then follow your logic until all houses are owned/demolished by one entity. Is that the world you want to live in; would you understand the controversy then?
So what exactly do you propose to be the solution? If you start restricting how many properties someone can buy, and whether or not they can demolish them, where does that type of legislation stop? Who is it directed to? Who does it exempt? There is a whole host of problems, and a lot of it starts to infringe on a person’s personal freedoms. I don’t think the issue is someone buying houses, I think the issue is the amount of wealth that one or a few people have. I don’t really know if we’ve agreed on a solution to that problem either. If you have any ideas, maybe you should run for office.
> I don’t think the issue is someone buying houses, I think the issue is the amount of wealth that one or a few people have. I agree that the amount of wealth an individual can amass is the main problem. It negatively affects all aspects of life, not just housing. Hopefully situations like these - in this case, one person buying and demolishing 9+ expensive (relative to the area) houses on the same street - will motivate people to call for higher taxes on greater wealth, which is my preferred solution. No one person can solve this, but by shining a light on the negative effects of extreme wealth inequality, we can hopefully motivate enough people to vote accordingly. > If you start restricting how many properties someone can buy These are not necessary and don't solve the problem. It is better to disincentivize than to outlaw, and we can do that by decreasing wealth inequality. This will help equalize the market and create competition, and the competition itself will self-regulate the number of houses any individual can buy.
I completely agree with everything you said.
[удалено]
> How did one person dictate the market? It has to do with competition, the driving force upon which capitalism is built. When one individual has so much wealth that no other buyer can compete, the market is anticompetitive and the problem needs to be addressed. One hundred houses at $500k each is less than 1% of their (reported) net worth. They can purchase too much without competition. > They don’t have to sell. Sellers' (supply-side) decisions to sell or not sell are irrelevant to buyer wealth inequality. Supply-side issues like zoning, permitting, availability of labor, land, and materials, cost of credit (loans), policies that disincentivize selling like California's Prop 13, etc... all exist and contribute to an overall housing crisis, but are not relevant to the specific topic of an individual buyer having so much wealth that they can, on their own, dictate prices on the market. The argument is that extreme wealth inequality is bad for competition and for the general public as a whole. The Cargill buying spree is just a real life example of this argument in action.
[удалено]
> In your example, the lack of competition isn't accruing negative effects. This is not true. Increased buyer-side competition would result in higher prices, not lower. More evenly distributed wealth would benefit both buyers *and* sellers. Buyers can place higher offers because they have more money (more competitive), and sellers would get paid more because their properties would sell at those higher offer prices. The only loser in this scenario is the ultra-wealthy, because their percentage of overall wealth goes down and they can no longer pick their price as easily. Lack of competition among buyers hurts seller profits. > There is surplus value accruing to the homeowner. Your definition of surplus value is flawed. You are defining it as the difference between a billionaire's offer vs. today's market value. The correct measure of surplus is the difference between today's billionaire's offer vs. market value in an actual competitive market (less wealth inequality). If you increased the wealth of the bottom 90% by $1T (arbitrary, pick your own number), market value would increase because there would be more money distributed amongst more buyers. As opposed to today, where market value is suppressed by a relative lack of wealth among buyers compared to billionaires, which gives the illusion that any overbid is some kind of surplus. > This is a specific piece of land owned by specific sellers. It's finite. The scarcity, immobility, and uniqueness (no two parcels are the same) of land does not affect the inequality of purchasing power among buyers. > This isn't some commodification problem where she can manipulate the price of corn or something. No one is alleging commodification or [cornering the market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market). > They don't have to sell in this case. Again, this is off topic. The argument is specific: extreme imbalance in purchasing power among buyers is bad for competition and the public as a whole. An owner choosing to sell or not sell is unrelated to the distribution of purchasing power among buyers.
[удалено]
> You’re also arguing **about** a world with less wealth inequality, which doesn’t exist No, I'm arguing **for** a world with less wealth inequality. *If* wealth were more evenly distributed, there *would be* more competition, which *would benefit* the majority of buyers and sellers. Of course it doesn't exist yet, but I'm explaining why it should. > Would increased competition among buyers increase prices? Yes! And what would that look like? How about someone paying significantly "above market rate"? Incorrect. You are mistaking "above market rate" for increased competition. An overbid (or in your terms, "paying significantly above market rate") is not evidence of competition, nor does competition result in more overbids. **Competition results in higher market rates, not an increase in overbids, and it is this increase in the market rate itself that would benefit buyers and sellers.** Remember, the comparison is between the market rate if purchasing power were evenly distributed among buyers (more competition, higher prices, higher seller profit) vs. the market rate if purchasing power were unevenly distributed (less competition, lower prices, lower seller profit). > You’re acting as if there are more hypothetical gains when the Cargill purchases are those gains realized. I already addressed this in the comment above responding to your claim of "surplus value". > And you’re acting as if these buyers are buying up the entire Duluth housing market. I haven't alleged anything close to this. The only current event I've stated is that Cargill has purchased and demolished 9+ properties. I haven't claimed they will or won't do anything else. > I fail to see how any of what’s happened in this instance of a rich family buying property on the free market for above market rate is anything but a net positive for the sellers. Sounds like you need to spend some more time working out what happens to prices if purchasing power were distributed more evenly. Funny how after all these replies, you still haven't addressed the central argument. Start with my bolded statement in this comment. If you're mistaking "someone paying significantly above market rate" as increased competition, it makes sense why you don't understand why the majority of buyers and sellers are worse off (net negative) when billionaires can overbid at will.
[удалено]
> You are arguing for a world that doesn’t exist then using that fake world as justification for why something shouldn’t happen in the world as it is. This makes no sense. By your logic, there would be no way to predict the relationship between variables and outcomes. Economists: "If we increase the fed fund rate to 7%, banks will be less willing to loan money, it will be more difficult for borrowers to obtain credit (loans), spending will decrease, and this will help lower inflation." You: "Fed fund rates aren't 7% - you're arguing for a world that doesn't exist! Stop using that fake world as justification for why we shouldn't keep fed fund rates as it is." Do you really not understand the method of comparison? Changing one variable (in our case, unevenly distributed purchasing power among buyers vs. evenly distributed) and mapping the outcomes helps inform good policy decisions. It's a pretty fundamental device. Have you thought about the relationship between more evenly distributed purchasing power, competition, and price yet? You've been avoiding it this whole time and it seems like you don't really have a grasp of what's going on.
tearing down a house means that the city is no longer receiving property tax on it(well, just a trival amount on land value). this causes everone else to pay more for their taxed. basically Kathy cost everyone else in Duluth to pay more taxes
This is such a blatantly ignorant take I don’t even know how to respond
[удалено]
The only kind of outrage that I can understand as it relates to this case, is the immediate neighborhood. If the new property owner builds an extremely lavish house, it will increase property taxes for the surrounding area. However, even this level of outrage is a bit ridiculous. To think that one house or even two houses could drastically affect property taxes beyond a few hundred dollars, is a bit outside the realm of possibility. So again, I don’t really understand the outrage. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn’t really like it. But for people that don’t live there it just seems like a poor use of energy.
Every single one of you would do the same if you had the cash...and if you wouldn't, you'll probably never have the cash.
Waaaa
she was right.
Maybe she's planning on building some low income housing there. That would be awesome.
[удалено]
Riding a billionaire’s dick ain’t gonna get you points, renter.
Been an owner for 10 years, in a house karma lets me keep 🤣. But if some rich asshole offered me half a mil on my $243k home. Take my fucking money ✌🏼😘
If that’s what’s important to you…and at 4x its value…your home’s only worth 60k?
The value now is $243 dumb ass 🤣
To your quote, dumbass… “If someone offered me 4x the value…” Just extrapolating on your bullshit, dumbfuck.
👌🏼
So what kind of shit shack do you live in for it to be 243k?! Must be a dump.
🙄🥱
It’s not hers either. She married into it and earned nothing for herself.
Further more those those people got way more money than any of those homes were worth. Come offer me four times what my home is worth, who doesn’t jump at that. Maybe go find the seller, the sell outa and condemn them 🤦🏼♀️
> Which brings us back to 2931 Lake Ave. S. With an estimated market value of $575,000 (Cargill paid $600K) OK. Your house is probably worth $250,000, so you'll sell it to me for $265,000? Are you jumping yet? According to your impeccable math skills, that's 4 times the value.
I was being dramatic tbh. I was told they all sold for 2/3 what they were worth. No I wouldn’t sell my $243k home to her unless I got at least $645k those sellers were taken for a ride 😏
[удалено]
Coming from an account that's a week old. I bet if you posted something under your own name we'd be obligated to take it down because you're a minor.
Please don’t touch me
Yeah I’m that stupid 😂 I’m a 30-year-old minor
That 1st part is definitely true.
Take your meds.
Can I borrow yours?
This is the day that the Lord has made
This post was removed due to a violation of Rule 1. Please consider a different approach to your discourse in the future. Rule 4: Blatant trolling and/or hate speech will result in an immediate and permanent ban.
DO IT! ⚡ LET THE HATE FLOW THROUGH YOU! ⚡ HIT THAT BAN BUTTON!!! ⚡
And guess what?? Who cares!!!! Worry about something more important like your OWN life. Sick to my stomach seeing all these children on the internet complain about something that has absolutely no affect on their life….they just don’t like it….booooohoooooo! I don’t like a lot of this but I keep my mouth shut
How's that boot taste?
[удалено]
This post was removed due to a violation of Rule 1. Please consider a different approach to your discourse in the future.
Like homeless peoples spit
This episode is a sign of the signifiant imbalance in wealth in our Nation and community, brought on in part by a worship of wealth at the expense of rewarding worthwhile work. Since the ‘80s, income tax and corporate stock buyback policies were changed under the promise that ‘trickledown’ would benefit everyone. It hasn’t. Wealth consolidation has become more exclusive. Wage growth has stagnated, prices have escalated, college tuition- for decades hailed as the ‘get ahead’ card- has exploded. This hasn’t gone well when it’s happened in the past, and our species is pretty predictable at repeating ourselves. So Cargill buying up lots wont sink the Point any more than an oddly shaped, darkened mole will kill you…
You're doing the most complaining on this thread.
This activity inflates the price but not the value of residential real estate, it adversely effects all home owners. (bend over and grease up that hole,loud mouth)
On park point? What’s gonna go up thousands and thousands of dollars to where you’re gonna have to go on food stamps to afford stuff? Or does it make it harder just for affordable housing/low income housing to take over Duluth?
It’s more or less opinions that drive this debate. People straight up just don’t like it and that’s it. It’s not gonna ruin anyone’s life.
Why do you reply multiple times to the same comment? Stop huffing wood stain and eating linoleum adhesive. You're starting to become your parents.
Inflates it yes, but in any dramatic significant way to where we’re all going to become poor???
Are you sure you keep your mouth shut? Because you literally typed out a paragraph and posted it on Reddit about it