It seems that manipulating the market by limiting the availability of properties only serves to raise prices artificially. Such practices widen the gap between those who can afford rising costs and those who cannot. Essentially, wealthier individuals gain an advantage while less affluent communities suffer, impacting everyone in the broader society. This method of inflating property values by reducing supply raises serious concerns about fairness and collective well-being.
i dont think its crimes, its just market roughness. policies, not investments, r the core problem. its about balancing demand n supply rather than criminalising smart investment plays.
I see your point, and I’m wondering if there might be other ways to balance investment benefits with community needs. Could innovative housing solutions or policy tweaks offer a middle ground? What tweaks have you seen effective elsewhere?
From my view, while it’s understandable to be concerned about how targeted investment can inflate property prices and limit supply in certain neighborhoods, labeling such practices as criminal oversimplifies a complex issue. I’ve observed that many investors work with the intention to improve poor-quality housing and revitalize communities rather than shock the market. The real challenge appears to be balancing profit motivations with responsible development. Policy reforms that encourage diverse housing options may prove more effective than criminal sanctions in addressing market imbalances.