tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480995.post113089366779115516..comments2023-07-16T09:43:40.228-04:00Comments on The Conversation: Bringing down the houseJonathan Pottshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18433924194960127561noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480995.post-1130975320919930012005-11-02T18:48:00.000-05:002005-11-02T18:48:00.000-05:00Fester,I said it was an indirect cause, not a dire...Fester,<BR/>I said it was an indirect cause, not a direct cause. I understand what you are saying about the borrowing people do to rehab old houses. But on balance it still is cheaper than buying a new home. And for that matter, all other things being equal, older homes in decent condition still are often less expensive than new construction.Jonathan Pottshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18433924194960127561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480995.post-1130946132871673452005-11-02T10:42:00.000-05:002005-11-02T10:42:00.000-05:00Jonathan --- first thank you for the compliment, b...Jonathan --- first thank you for the compliment, but I am no where near the leading wonk in town, I am just the leading blogging wonk --- massive difference. If you want to see some influential wonks, go down to Hamburg Hall during lunch or Craig Street for coffee.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I am not so sure if the deduction directly encourages sprawl on the grounds that you advance in that rehab that is financed through refinancing of mortgages, or a second mortgage also qualifies for the same deduction. I will easily accept the argument that the deduction encourages overbuilding and that the other tax expenditures, legal liability, externality payment and policy conditions, and cost factors strongly encourage marginal development to be spawl based development, but the direct cause is not there in my opinion.festerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718756982251152390noreply@blogger.com