173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
173 points (96.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44197 readers
1054 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is usually the case. When the value goes up, pretty much all of the increase is due to the land value increasing. Land is a limited resource that's always in demand, especially in desirable areas. The house itself is actually going down in value over time due to depreciation.
In my area it's not uncommon for at least 70% of the value of a property to be in the land, and the house itself accounts for less than 30% of the value. There's a lot of houses built in the 1940s to 70s in highly desirable areas.
I've never thought about it like that, but it makes good sense.