He's not referring investment in the sense of individuals coming in, buying houses, improving them and flipping them.
> We're talking about things like putting in street trees, painting crosswalks, patching sidewalks, and making changes to zoning regulations to provide more flexibility for neighborhood businesses, accessory apartments and parking.
His argument is that small civic investments in infrastructure in poor neighborhoods have a good chance of increasing the average property value of the whole neighborhood and thus increasing the tax base. Not all 'investments' will work, but they are relatively inexpensive so you can experiment and replicate the ones that do work across the whole city.
You're right, I reread it and it's talking about the city. I guess had never seen it argued before that a city should optimize property values(and hence taxes).
That raises the question: Property taxes increasing won't by themselves increase people's incomes. Since they aren't trying to affect jobs(per-capita income) and explicitly mentioned density is not the issue(population), then the only thing left is to change the demographics(transfer wealth in).
Investment could be meant more broadly(like education or healthcare), but he explicitly disclaims that at the start("What I'm going to present here is pure dollars and cents. "). Somehow it doesn't seem right to advocate for city policy that swaps out the existing citizens for more profitable ones, though I suppose the existing citizens do come out ahead.
He's not talking about buying the homes and renovating like an investor trying to make money. He's talking about ways to make the neighborhoods more livable (and therefore more valuable) by having the cities invest in the infrastructure.
I think your point is 100% spot on. HOWEVER to be clear no one really should be investing in anything they don't truly deeply understand. There is no invest X amount of money, not understand the business, get X + Y money out... unless Y is negative.
Except maybe the stock market with a 30 year horizon.
> "not someone on welfare with a hidden drug problem."
whoa.
what about the person whose spouse died last year, and whose house burned down over Christmas?
^^ she's a 1st order connection, but not my tenant.
how about the aunt who's got +2 mouths to feed & house after her sister died?
^^ again, real human, facing real serious cash-flow problems.
there are so many ways to wind up in a hard way, necessitating low-cost housing.
as a student at university, I did significantly more damage to rental properties than I lost deposits to repair... intentionally. and I smoked a lot of pot.
I'm not disputing your point that most individuals in a place to afford the time and money to 'get into property' are going to want to avoid situations that represent a financial risk to them.
however, I was totally put off by the war zone characterization.
