That seems to be pretty good for the group of newcomers! They all buy together at lowish prices, then prices go up enough that they ~make their money back on housing appreciation. And it's not bad for existing homeowners either, since they get the appreciation too.
> And it's not bad for existing homeowners either, since they get the appreciation too.
Assuming everyone is only out after appreciating house prices. While the locals who lived there before you might like that the house gains in value, depending on how large the group is and what the culture is, they might not like it at all. There is a reason some rural people continue living in rural areas, and bringing parts of the city to them might not be ideal for those people.
Exactly what rural people want, enough city people all moving in at once to noticably change the local culture(their whole goal) and also price the locals out of their own city
Or you could just invest the difference in your stock portfolio and institute a land value tax instead. Stock are more a lot more liquid than real estate and less risky as well. Whereas the value of a home is pretty much stuck in the property until you convert it to liquid cash by selling it, but then you need to move elsewhere.
Indeed you could either go through the arduous task of convincing your friends to move somewhere with you or just get enough political support for a land value tax instead. No brainer to go for the tax. Way easier to achieve.
